F 258 
N5 J4 
opy 1 




A Study of the New York City 
Milk Problem 



flp Irwin G. Jbnnings 



Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements 

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty 

of Political Science, Columbia University. 



Published by 

The National Civic Federation 

New York, 1919 



A Study of the New York City 
Milk Problem 

By Irwin G. Jennings 



Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements 

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty 

of Political Science, Columbia University. 



Published by 

The National Civic Federation 

New York, 1919 



5 ti$ 



3Htt 



INTRODUCTION 



In the month of September, 1916, the receipt of the daily milk 
supply of New York City was seriously imperiled. For more than a 
week, the producers under the leadership of their "association" had 
been on a strike demanding increased prices from the New York 
dealers. Much good milk in the possession of those seeking to 
deliver it to shipping stations was destroyed by the striking pro- 
ducers. A large part of the milk received during this period was 
not of a sanitary character. A deadlock was reached. The Mayor of 
the city intervened and tried to settle the dispute, but he made no 
progress whatever. The dealers were proceeding on the theory that 
the public would not stand for a rise in the price of milk and their 
profits were so small that a very slight advance in the cost of milk to 
them if they were compelled to sell at the then retail prices, would 
drive practically all of the smaller companies out of business. 

The producers were conscious that the price they were receiving 
from the dealers did not cover the cost of production and so were 
determined at all events to see the strike through. Beyond the 
interest taken by the Mayor, there was no authoritative assertion of 
the right of the New York public to receive its daily supply. The 
controversy was finally settled, but the public paid the bill. From 
this time on, the price of milk to the consumer was progressively 
higher until in November, 1917, but little more than a year from 
the time of the first strike, grade B milk rose from 9 cents to 15 
cents or an advance of 66-2/3% over its former price. 

In the fall of 1917, controversy again rose. Public authorities 
began to take cognizance of the situation and the District Attorney 
even threatened to indict the leaders of the producers who were 
making what seemed to him to be exorbitant demands. It was 
reported that if the District Attorney should carry out his threat 
against one or more of the members of the Producers' Association, 
the cows would be killed and the milk destroyed. Again the New 
York milk supply was imperiled and again the controversy was 
settled by the New York public's paying the bill. 

Something more than a year has passed. In the meantime, the 
Federal Food Commission which had adjusted the price between the 
producer and the distributor during the war, after the armistice, dis- 
continued its efforts along that line. Under the Commission the 
policy followed was for the dealers to charge their patrons just as 
much more for their milk as the commission permitted the producers 
to add to the existing price. Thus both the dealers and farmers got 
along very nicely at the expense of the consumer. But, in January, 
1919, the first month that these two interests in the industry were left 
to themselves, on account of their inability to agree, a milk strike 
resulted. There were three conflicting factors in this strike, the 
dairymen's league, the milk dealers' pool and the New York public. 



The strike was finally settled by the dealers and producers 
agreeing upon prices for a period of three months, after which time, 
the questions of future prices will again arise with new possibilities 
of disagreement. 

A number of inquiries and investigations are now under way, 
some of which have been undertaken by agencies more or less favor- 
able to a particular interest of the industry, and possibly none of 
them charged with the responsibility of making and justifying con- 
structive recommendations. It would seem therefore, that a most 
pressing demand has arisen for an unprejudiced inquiry into the 
facts and the law with a view to preserving the integrity of the milk 
industry as a whole and of securing both a more economical and 
uninterrupted service of milk to the New York public. The scope 
of this study will cover: — 

1. Whether or not the health and welfare of the New York 
public shall be periodically placed in jeopardy by lack of 
co-operation among the various interests of the milk industry. 

2. What is the right of the New York public to an efficiently 
produced, distributed and controlled milk supply? 

3. What are the facts concerning the efficiency of the produc- 
tion, distribution and sanitary control of its milk supply? 

4. What results may be expected from the co-operation of the 
various interests involved and by efficient business organiza- 
tion throughout the industry? 

5. How far should this right be secured by the exercise of the 
public power? 

Greater New York is today a city of more than five million 
people and growing rapidly. In it there are estimated by the Board 
of Health to be 130,000 babies under one year of age and 126,000 
babies under two years of age. The health, welfare and probably 
the lives of the greater percentage of these babies are dependent upon 
an uninterrupted, sanitary milk supply. Besides this, there are a 
great number of convalescing invalids, some of them wounded 
soldiers who must have milk. Milk is a vital necessity. There are 
no satisfactory substitutes for it. The milk supply cannot with im- 
punity be tampered with. To do so may mean death to many human 
beings. To be the direct or indirect cause of a single death means 
more than fines or jail to the guilty person. The New York public's 
right to life and health is fundamental. There are some things about 
which the interests may quarrel, but their quarrels should not be 
allowed to imperil the lives of the people. 

Although New York City will always be dependent upon the 
outside world for its food and drink, it has an undoubted right to 
them which should not be interfered with even if drastic penal legis- 
lation is necessary to emphasize it. It is reasonable to expect that 
its milk supply will be received at a cost to the public which con- 
templates only a reasonable profit after it has been efficiently pro- 
duced, distributed and controlled. If milk is a vital necessity and is 



universally used by the New York public, then its production, dis- 
tribution and control become very like public service functions and 
whoever is engaged therein is accountable to the people for their 
proper and efficient performance and any extraordinary profits de- 
rived therefrom. 

* But those so engaged, whether as producers, distributors or as 
controlling agents, are entitled to be treated as public service agents 
and to receive credit and a fair profit for the service rendered and 
for the capital loaned to the public, providing their work has been 
efficiently done and their capital efficiently used. For a number of 
years a fair profit has not been accorded either to the milk producer 
nor to the milk distributor. This fact has been evidenced by the 
unrest that has existed in the country among the producers and the 
large number of distributors who have been forced out of business. 
To run a dairy farm successfully, requires brains and understanding, 
investment of capital and a sympathetic attitude towards sanitary 
regulations. Why should it not pay the farmer to meet these con- 
ditions? To administer a great milk business in New York City with 
its various responsibilities and with the great variety of business and 
sanitary functions to be performed, is worthy of a profit commen- 
surate with self-respect and with financial health. Therefore, before 
the more drastic features of the public power are brought to bear 
upon the milk industry or before the public irrevocably assumes the 
responsibility of owning and running an industry of such great mag- 
nitude, the opportunity should be given for the various interests of 
the milk industry to co-operate upon a basis where all can see a 
reasonable profit and where there will still be present the stimulus 
of additional financial reward for the intelligent use of efficient busi- 
ness organization and of business methods throughout the industry. 

No interest in the milk industry has in the past sufficiently ap- 
preciated the dignity, importance and responsibility of the functions 
it has been performing. To this fact is due most of the disrepute into 
which the industry has fallen. The public attitude and that of the 
press toward the industry have been wrong. The milk distributor, 
instead of being looked upon as a business man performing a public 
service function and entitled to credit for work well done, has been 
universally regarded with suspicion. The presumption has been 
against him. No morsel of news has been so luscious, in the eyes 
of the ordinary reporter, as a front page account of adulteration or 
dirty containers or of responsibility for disease traced to a milk 
dealer's door. It has been popular pastime for the social reformer 
to attack the milk dealer and to charge him with fraud, dishonesty 
and uncleanliness, and the latter has had well defined reasons for 
taking a position calling for the least possible publicity. 

The court records have been against the dealer and as they 
stand the presumption is fairly adverse. But these records are not 
a fair index of the true situation. The following compilations made 
by the New York Milk Committee, of which the 1914 figures have 
never been published, are interesting on this point. 

3 



u £ S 



m oo cc 



CN)Tj"C0'<#cN00m©\'' ; ttNvO 

t— i Tj« o o c<) >— i o i— < cn es 

c « in o> m 



H P-T 





us 








14 








O 








>H 









£ 




S "2 

e 2 




w 


K 


U o 




z 


H 


£ H 






-J 


£ 




W 
H 




n 

5! 




«< 








W 


Uh 






ce5 


O 


jj 




O 




3 




2 


H 
Z 




H 


1— < 


cd 


w 




w 


w 


S 




J 


j 


H 




CQ 


< 


PS 




< 


w 


< 




H 


Q 


Oh 


«— 






W 


o 




^ 


Q 


S3 




J 




O ° 




M 








u. 


H 


N 




O 




M 




z 


P 






© 


O 
C5 


JS 




D 


CQ 







CJ 








w 








Vi 








o 








CH 








Oh 







CO «5 i— I 



§ 



l-H © 



i— i evj 
oo t- 



5 



1— < 


ON 


00 


CTv 


r- 


C*; 


l-H 

r— I 


co 

00 


CO 






ro 



rt .-* 



H U Z H 



c 



3 .a 



< Q Q U 



2 uo 

>-< CO 



a « 2 

8 B 

5 2 



S b o> 2 

§ E 

g o a g *" 

ii ! 



==35 



51 «3 



3 <N 



- S © 



p-« eo h * w 

CO « N N 



in i— * © TJ 

00 00 CO "5 



N CO CO © 

** ce ■— • n 



\C © 



N H « o 
1/5 m io >~ • 



» _| \© CO CO 



<N M 00 £j 

CO PH ** 

P-« 

CO i»* CO 

Tf v© 00 

n co ** 2 

ic r- "— ' t*s 

i-h 

>© •* m 



S5 



8 



C/3 

Z 

© C c = N 

o 



• cm 



CO fH 



fa 

O 



3* 



C/3 <n 

< S 5 

B S 

g'S Ji 

< 



l-H CO 



2 n 
2 £ 



1-H 
LO CO 



CO © 

CO CO 

ON i— t 

5 5 



B N H W 

3 © >-" oo 

CO CO N 



Oi 00 

(M r-l 
LO ON 



1-H M 

■H CO 



9 s 



■-< h y2 



$ 





lO 




v© 


§ 


5 



5 s 



2 H 1H © 

2 $ ^3 



r-H tJ H 



: s : 




T3 ' 






. © . 




en 






>H . 




o 






«HH * 




a 

U3 






fcD u 




•3 






C nj 










.-H £> 










2 a 3 




to 
© 






o 


) to 






4 
u 
a 
t 


i ° 


s 





2 « ft. 
O nJ 



Z H 



3 .5 
O fa 



a _ 




Under the first analysis above, it will be seen that on an average, 
in 94% of the prosecutions, the dealer was found guilty. If the 
same number of criminal prosecutions were brought against other 
citizens with the same financial ability possessed by these milk 
dealers to hire attorneys and carry the cases through the courts and 
where the rule obtained that conviction must be on evidence beyond 
a reasonable doubt, a much smaller percentage of convictions would 
be shown. But from the business standpoint, the milk dealer could 
not afford to fight this type of prosecution as he would others. The 
limited number of jail sentences and of fines imposed, as shown 
above, together with the small amount of publicity incurred by this 
course, justified him in his attitude. 

Under the analysis of violations, the very nature of two of the 
charges would seem to designate the milk dealer as an unfit public 
servant. Adulteration of milk and unclean containers bring before 
our eyes a most condemning picture; but when we remember that 
most of the cases of adulteration were based upon the conclusive 
presumption, that milk below the legal standard in butter fat, is 
adulterated, notwithstanding the fact that at certain seasons of the 
year in New York state, milk directly drawn from many of the cows is 
below such standard, the crime is not so terrible after all. When it is 
further understood that if a milk driver receives a dirty bottle from 
a house wife and it is found in his possession, that there is no evidence 
that can refute the presumption of his guilt in using unclean con- 
tainers, the difficulty of his position is apparent. On the other hand, 
this non-resistance on the part of the milk dealer has encouraged the 
courts to construct the above legal presumptions against him that 
would not be tolerated in other cases. 

The good will of a milk business is its main asset. The milk 
plants, the machinery, the wagons and the cans of a concern that is 
not going are worth but little. To preserve the good will is most 
important. The most effective menace to this good will is unfavor- 
able newspaper notoriety. To keep his cases out of the general 
courts has been considered by the milk dealer, essential in order to 
escape such publicity. To plead guilty and to take reprimands in 
the minor courts accomplished this purpose. While in the interests 
of public health, such matters as penalizing a milk dealer for real 
adulteration and for a criminally careless use of dirty containers 
are well within the scope of the police power, it is also a fact that 
herein this great public power has often been used to affect detri- 
mentally the morale of an important branch of the milk industry. 

The application of the power itself is not to blame, but the 
attendant attitude of the public through its agents of publicity and 
justice has exercised a most repressive influence. Over-regulation 
can be so used as to deprive New York of its milk supply, or, on 
the other hand, its more constructive use may be used to insure a 
better and more wholesome product. At one extreme, there can be 
invoked intelligent, constructive, stimulating regulation, at the other, 



repressive and destructive prosecution. Any governmental regula- 
tion, however slight it may be and though it may insure co-operation 
and efficiency throughout the industry, will necessarily have to be 
applied under the sanction of the police power. The more intelli- 
gent the regulation, the more in harmony it is with the basic needs 
of the industry and the more stimulating and effective it will be. 

The following study of the milk industry will seek to show cer- 
tain inefficiencies throughout the industry and their causes together 
with some constructive suggestions as to remedies. While recog- 
nizing the ability of the New York public to assume the ownership 
of the milk industry and the moral and legal grounds for the regu- 
lation thereof by a state commission, it will urge as the better 
alternative the value of co-operation between the conflicting interests 
of the industry, the continuance of a proper division of labor, the 
necessity for faith in each other's honesty of purpose and a proper 
appreciation by all concerned of the important element of service 
in producing and distributing clean milk to the world's leading city. 

In submitting the tables contained in the following chapters, no 
attempt will be made to claim for them a greater scientific value 
than appears on their face. They are generally based upon an 
analysis of a considerable amount of data gathered on a certain day 
or covering a short period of time. The time selected to gather most 
of this data was in the early part of December, 1917, during ap- 
proximately normal production in the country and before the con- 
solidations which have been so largely in vogue among the dealers 
during the past year, had greatly affected the industry. An analysis 
of data covering longer periods of time might have been made, but 
the variations due to prices, locality, types of cattle and other matters 
would still affect its scientific accuracy. On the other hand, a study 
covering a shorter period is valuable as showing the tendencies and 
relations, because a larger number of facts can be gathered, which 
so far as they go, are more likely to be accurate and will not mis- 
lead unless they are mislabeled. 

CHAPTER I. 

Inefficiencies in Production. 

The basis of the whole milk industry is production. It would 
seem, therefore, that every branch of the industry would naturally 
be influenced greatly by production processes and organization and 
that production must be intelligent, efficient and sufficient. All other 
branches of the industry are dependent upon the producer. This 
does not mean that the producer should control these other branches, 
but it is most necessary that he work with them and they with and 
for him. The producer should be the first to welcome co-operation 
and the other interests in the business must be persuaded to volun- 
tarily or involuntarily co-operate with him. 



According to Board of Health Reports the milk supply of New 
York City is obtained from more than 30,000 farms in six different 
states and Canada, although more than three-fourths of the supply 
under normal conditions comes from New York State alone. It can 
easily be seen that in a production process where there are more than 
30,000 bosses with almost as many different ideals and attitudes to- 
wards production, great efficiency therein can scarcely be expected. 
But much can be done to make conditions better. The same business 
principles obtain in the production of milk as in other lines of pro- 
duction. Such fundamentals as centralization of control can only 
come with association and regulation. But much can be done 
through educational processes to arouse a realization of the im- 
portance of the industry and to promote among its several interests 
a mutual faith and confidence in each other. 

The principle causes of inefficiency in milk production are: 

First. Treating it as a side line. Many dairymen seem to evince 
no interest or enthusiasm in the production of milk as a science or 
a business. It is a fundamental principle that no man can expect 
to succeed in any business or profession in which he does not believe 
and into which he can not put his heart. 

Second. The failure to use ordinary business methods in the 
production of milk. All well organized branches of production con- 
template at least three things, capacity production, the use of reason- 
able accounting methods which will show the relation between the 
cost of the articles produced and their price, and a constructive pur- 
pose governing the production processes. One or more of these 
business fundamentals are generally absent in the production of milk. 

The ordinary milk producer seldom looks upon his farm as a 
producing plant carrying with it a certain fixed overhead which may 
become more or less destructive according to the way his farm is 
used. In dairying, there certainly must be a relation between the 
number of acres in the farm, the amount of capital invested in build- 
ings, the amount of additional capital that can be applied to the 
farm economically, the number of cows maintained and the amount 
of milk produced. In contemplating the amount of capital to be 
expended in buildings and cows, the availability and proximity of 
the farm to the market or shipping station should be considered and 
the question asked and answered as to whether such distance may not 
preclude its ever becoming the proper site for a profitable dairy. 
If so, common sense would seem to dictate that the foundations of 
a producing dairy should not be laid upon such a farm. 

As to the consideration of reasonable accounting, there is no 
question but what this is vital to the successful dairy. No amount of 
argument or sentiment will justify the maintenance of a cow that 
will not produce her feed in milk and yet experience is showing that 
there are thousands of such cows which are not known to be such. 
Of course, if all the unproductive cows were killed at once, a milk 
shortage would follow. But practically, there is no such danger 

8 



and much may be gained by an intelligent examination of the herds 
and a determined effort put forth to eliminate unprofitable cows and 
to breed for more profitable production. The very great chances 
are that boarders will beget boarders and so the same old inefficient 
cow organization is maintained from year to year. 

Of very great importance is the third principle, that of having 
a really constructive purpose in mind in organizing for better dairy- 
ing. Such a purpose will provide for accounting and for the elim- 
ination of boarders, and for breeding the herd toward a profitable 
production basis. Such a purpose will give character to the whole 
farm and everyone and everything connected with it. It is the big 
requisite for success in any industry and no less so in the produc- 
tion of milk. All the inspiration that comes to the successful man in 
any business, may be felt by the dairymen. Dairying is even better 
in this respect than successful farming. 

In the Fall of 1914, the writer, as Secretary of one of New 
York's larger milk companies, attended the National Dairy show at 
Chicago on the theory that here would be a good place to study 
cows. Much to his satisfaction, he found that there were plenty of 
cows to be studied. He addressed himself to the owners of the 
various herds of pure bred stock and was treated with great cour- 
tesy. They showed him their prize cows and all their good points, 
and they answered all his questions. 

The next day he repaired to the ground floor where the prize 
stock was being judged and watched this process with great interest, 
prejudging the cows himself with varying success. But after spend- 
ing several hours at this he felt dissatisfied with his progress for the 
reason that these cows were of the purest type and the best in their 
class, whereas the type of cow, the study of which would be most 
valuable to him was the ordinary grade cow that would commonly 
be found in the New York territory. He went up into the barns 
again and there is one corner he found exactly what he wished most 
to see. The United States government was making a public demon- 
stration of the relation which exists between cows and their feed, and 
the amount and value of milk produced and had chosen for the pur- 
pose nine common grade cows of dissimilar types. 

The writer stayed with this herd of cows during the remainder 
of the show and assumed to himself all the functions of ownership, 
watching their feeding, their milking and the preparation of the 
records, also inquiring specifically into the history of the cows and 
the manner of their acquisition by the government superintendent. 
He found that his herd consisted of some very good cows and of 
some decidedly unprofitable ones. 



TABLE II 



Price Paid £ Value of Milk at "J "0 

No. Breed for Cows Qt». Milk Fat Test Lbs. Fat J™ 4c. per Quart -8 



1 


G. Jer. 


$50 


3.8 


4.6 


.4 


.13 


.15 


.21 


2 


G. Short. 


80 


6.1 


4.3 


.57 


.19 


.24 


.22 


3 


G. Short. 


60 


9.3 


3.5 


.67 


.22 


.37 


.23 


4 


G. Jer. 


60 


12.1 


4.9 


1.26 


.42 


.48 


.23 


5 


G. Hoi. 


70 


13.5 


3.7 


1.1 


.35 


.52 


.24 


6 


G. Short. 


70 


15. 


3.6 


1.12 


.38 


.60 


.24 


7 


G. Guern. 


100 


15.6 


4.4 


1.47 


.49 


.62 


.25 


8 


G. Guern. 


160 


15.7 


6.5 


2.17 


.71 


.63 


.25 


9 


G. Hoi. 


150 


23.5 


3.8 


1.9 


.63 


.92 


.28 



The appended table is the average record for each cow during 
the week's experience. The cows were about the same age and 
freshened at or near the same date. On the basis of fat value, some 
of them did not even pay for their feed, let alone the overhead and 
other expenses that would have to be accounted for as the basis of 
farm production cost. On the per quart basis, calculated at 4c per 
quart, the average price to the farmer at that time, the showing 
was but little better. The last day spent at the show was the most 
illuminating to the writer. Although he himself knew from his ob- 
servation the relative productive value of these cows, he wanted to 
gain some idea of the ability of those, especially dairymen, who 
visited the exhibit to judge the value of the different cows in the 
herd, before they knew the facts. As the cows were to be sold at 
the close of the show, he asked various visitors at the exhibit to 
assist him in appraising the value of the animals. At least a score 
of practical farmers, dairy experts, and agricultural writers, after 
careful examination, appraised the cows, but no two of them agreed 
in their estimates nor correctly adjudged them according to their 
respective showings in the demonstration. Much surprise was man- 
ifested when the facts were learned. Practically all agreed that 
number 9 was a high grade cow, but as to the others there was a 
great diversity of opinion, one man valuing number 1 above number 
8, the estimates of which latter cow varied from beef to $100.00. 
The reasonable conclusion from this experience would seem to be 
that the average farmer or dairyman does not and probably cannot 
know whether or not a dairy cow will prove to be a profitable milk 
producer by mere physical inspection and without keeping an actual 
account of her production as compared with the cost of her main- 
tenance during a sufficient period of time to learn the facts. 



10 



TABLE III 



Cretmery , *g '| f 8. S3 |„ 

c • ■> £ .5 M £ s **" 

« i §*< s |s gs §o S( 3 s©, 

ft. C O 1 <u u c ■< < 

J 17 681 40 1,827 276 118 5.8 6.6 2.68 

C 27 874 32 3,051 264 200 4.4 11.6 3.5 

R. G 37 1,251 33 4,222 382 271 4.6 11. 3.37 

S. F 28 1,391 50 4,462 535 429 3.2 8.3 3.21 

L 56 1,464 26 4,327 454 276 5.3 9.5 2.95 

P 22 1,549 70 3,114 347 242 6.4 9. 2. 

S. C 45 1,858 41 4,626 475 261 7.1 9.9 2.49 

E.CCR.. 45 1,904 42 7,630 797 372 5.1 9.6 4. 

SoL 32 2,069 64 5,378 493 360 5.7 10.9 2.6 

S. Ch 31 2,443 79 5,470 588 376 6.5 9.3 2.24 

B 42 2,507 59 4,432 500 380 6.6 8.9 1.77 

S. Fron 39 2,684 69 6,033 857 343 7.8 7. 2.25 

B. M 35 2,896 82 3,869 507 390 7.4 7.6 1.34 

A 76 3,272 43 9,208 1,017 599 6.5 9. 2.81 

S. St 55 3,361 61 8,566 1,108 601 5.6 7.7 2.55 

S. Fr 84 4,090 49 15,379 1,765 1,011 4. 8.7 3.76 

E. W 79 4,798 61 10,791 1,176 792 6.1 9.2 2.25 

S. J 50 5,069 101 7,998 811 571 8.6 9.9 1.58 

E. St 109 5,199 48 15,981 1,377 901 5.8 11.6 3.07 

E. H 59 5,529 94 6.381 797 515 10.7 8. 1.15 

Shek. 37 7,838 211 7,635 1,026 853 9.2 7.4 .97 

S. G. G 63 8,301 132 13,921 2,246 1,354 6.1 6.2 1.67 

H 95 12,471 131 11,863 1,928 1,476 8.6 6.2 .95 

S. P 59 13,280 225 13,016 1,836 1,391 9.5 7. .98 

S. T 73 14,332 196 13,080 1,766 1,011 14.2 7.4 9.1 

Table number three is based upon answers returned to a ques- 
tionnaire submitted to 25 superintendents of creameries or shipping 
stations of various sizes located in different sections of the New York 
territory and performing various functions. The answers were care- 
fully prepared by the creamery superintendents from their records, 
their observations and from interrogating their patrons on the day 
in question. The attempt has here been made to show the relations 
existing between the patrons at each creamery and the amount of 
their production, also between the cows maintained and the cows 
milked by them, between the acres owned and the cows maintained 
and between the cows milked, the quarts per cow and the acres per 
quart. Data covering the individual patrons of each creamery was 
gathered and the above relations for each individual shown, the table 
itself showing only the average situation existing at each creamery. 

The table gives the figures for the production of a single day in 
December, 1917, on 1,295 farms, consisting of 192,260 acres, main- 
taining 23,238 cows, of which 15,093 or about 65% were being 
milked at the time, and producing on that day 111,111 quarts of 
milk, which was about 1/15 of the total milk supply of New York 
City for that day. 

11 



The size of the creameries varied as to patrons from 17 to 109 
and in amount of their receipts for the day from 681 to 14,332 quarts. 
The average amount of quarts delivered to the creameries on that 
day was 86, a little more than 2 cans, although the actual average 
for one of the creameries was as low as 26 quarts for each of 56 
patrons, while another creamery averaged 225 quarts each for 59 
patrons. The average amount of milk given for each cow milked 
was 7.3 quarts, while at one creamery the average production per 
cow was but little over three quarts. The average production per 
cow of nine of the creameries was under 6 quarts per day, which 
amount has been estimated to be about the average amount of milk 
given per cow in New York State on the yearly basis. The table 
further shows that 8.2 acres of land on the average were used for 
the maintenance of each cow, while it required 1.8 acres of land for 
each quart of milk produced. 









TABLE IV 










Creamery 


S a 
a o 

oi 
§,(2 

at h 


a 


l< 


•9 
o 
a 
"3 
a 
■ a 
IS 


M 

|9 


u 
B 

o. 

2 * 

*< o 
■U 


i 

3 o 


° - 
u 01 




< 


U 


< 


U 


u 


a 


•< 


< 


L-l 


81 


2. 
4.4 


160 
240 


17 
34 


11 

22 


7.4 
8. 


9.4 
7.1 


2. 


P-l 


176 


1.4 


HI 


496 


12.4 


158 


44 


38 


13.1 


3.6 


.32 


S-l 


224 


5.6 


357 


33 


28 


8. 


10.8 


1.6 


B-l 


, 164 


4.1 


164 


28 


21 


7.8 


6. 


1. 


B.M.-1 ... 


... 284 


7.1 


192 


32 


27 


10.5 


6. 


.68 


C-l 


75 


1.9 
2.2 


116 
188 


15 
15 


10 
14 


7.5 
5.6 


7.7 
12.5 


1.5 


R.G.-1 ... 


89 


2.1 


A-l 


160 


4. 


143 


22 


16 


10. 


6.5 


.9 


J-l 


172 


4.3 


107 


19 


9 


19.5 


5.6 


.63 


S-l 


553 


13.8 


367 


57 


48 


11.5 


6.5 


.66 


P-l 


,. 711 


18. 


447 


70 


57 


12.5 


6.4 


.63 


Fron.-l .... 


144 


3.6 


180 


30 


16 


9. 


6. 


1.3 


F-l 


154 


3.9 


413 


43 


27 


6. 


9. 


2.7 


C-l 


123 


3. 


117 


15 


10 


12.3 


8. 


.95 


C.H.-1 .... 


186 


4.7 


206 


23 


18 


10. 


9. 


1.1 


Fer.-l .... 


139 


3.5 


260 


30 


18 


8. 


9. 


2. 


G.G.-l .... 


494 


12.4 


358 


90 


64 


7.7 


4. 


.73 


S.J.-1 


240 


6. 


170 


22 


17 


14. 


8. 


.71 


Tr.-l 


,.. 395 


10. 


278 


58 


38 


10.4 


7. 


.7 


St.-1 


211 


5.3 


200 


39 


23 


9. 


5. 


.95 


H-l 


309 


7.7 


137 


29 


21 


14.7 


4.7 


.44 




195 


4.9 


287 


36 


23 


8.5 


8. 


1.5 


W-l 


, 255 


6.4 


217 


33 


26 


9.8 


6.6 


.85 


C.C.R.-1 . 


... 135 


3.4 


213 


25 


18 


7.5 


8.5 


1.6 



12 



TABLE V 



5 a % 

3 S 

Creamery „ a „ „ 2 ^ a. C «„ 

a a E -S -* "> a i ft S 

S& i $< N |l I«s is i» 

< U < U U ©* •< •< 

L-2 5 V % 57 4 2 2.5 14. 11.4 

P-2 34 .9 105 10 7 4.8 10. 3. 

H-2 10 .25 97 13 6 1.7 7.5 9.7 

S-2 12 .3 87 9 5 2.4 9.7 7.3 

B-2 15 .37 99 10 7 2.1 9.9 6.6 

B.M.-2 Sy 3 .2 36 5 5 1.8 7.1 4.3 

C-2 Sy 3 .2 110 7 4 2.2 16.5 13.2 

R.G.-2 9 .22 54 5 3 2.7 10.9 6. 

A-2 Sy 3 .2 103 13 3 2.5 7.7 12.4 

J-2 23 .57 68 11 4 5.8 6.4 3. 

S-2 30 .75 183 11 7 4.5 16.6 6.1 

P-2 30.4 .75 135 12 7 4.3 11.2 4.4 

Fron.-2 12.5 .3 97 8 2 6.2 12. 8. 

F-2 9.4 .23 101 10 6 1.6 10. 11. 

G2 5.5 .14 87 7 2 2.8 12.4 16. 

C.H.-2 14 .35 107 7 6 2.3 15.3 7.6 

Fer.-2 12.5 .3 115 13 5 2.5 9. 9. 

G.G.-2 22.4 .56 103 17 7 3.2 6. 4.6 

S.J.-2 11.1 .28 140 9 5 2.2 15.5 12.6 

Tr.-2 9.5 .24 108 11 6 1.6 9.8 11.3 

St.-2 10.9 .27 51 7 5 2.2 7.3 4.7 

H-2 21.2 .53 29 4 3 7.1 7.3 1.3 

Steo.-2 9 .23 88 10 3 3. 8.8 9.8 

W-2 9 .23 101 10 4 2.2 10.1 11.2 

C.C.R.-2 .... 8 .2 172 11 4 2. 16. .22 

Table number 4 is made up of the same day's figures for the 
three largest producers in each creamery and table 5 from the three 
smallest producers, no attention being paid to the question of effi- 
ciency in production except so far as was indicated by the amount 
of production. Table 4 contains the average showing of 75 large 
producers, while table 5 contains the average of 75 small producers. 
As in the one case, the average number of quarts produced per 
patron is much larger, so in the other case, the average amount is 
much smaller than a like average for all the patrons in their re- 
spective creameries. Certainly one would expect to see a different 
type of farm producing 246 quarts per patron than one producing 
14 quarts and would also expect a different amount of profit per 
quart. 

The figures are rather illuminating, however. The cows of the 
large producers gave on the average 9.93 quarts per cow, while 6.6 
acres were used for the maintenance of each cow and less than one 
acre of land was required to produce one quart of milk. The cows 
of the smaller producers gave on the average, less than three quarts 
of milk, requiring more than ten acres of land to produce one quart 
of milk. It will be noted at creamery J-l more than 19 quarts of 
milk were produced per cow, while in table 5 the average of the 

13 



producers at four creameries was less than two quarts per cow. Of 
the large producers, all but one was up to the average of the New 
York State production per cow, while in table 5, at only two cream- 
eries was the average number of quarts per cow up to the average 
state production per cow. Yet the average number of acres owned 
by these smaller producers was 97 and the average number of cows 
maintained by each was ten. It is obvious that if the price of milk 
is determined, so as to permit a reasonable profit for the average 
New York producer, very many other producers will be making 
from less than a reasonable profit to a positive loss, not because 
they have not the cows, nor the acres, nor the shipping facilities, 
but because of a lack of interest or the application of business 
methods to their dairying. 

For a determination of efficient production of milk, it is abso- 
lutely necessary to take four things into consideration, first, the size 
and character of the farm and the relative number of cows upon it, 
second, the productivity of the separate cows, third, the efficient ad- 
ministration of the farm and the amount of emphasis placed upon 
dairying as a business, fourth, the distance of the farm from the 
creamery or shipping station; although this latter point will be con- 
sidered in the discussion under the head of milk delivery. Com- 
pilations of figures which fail to take into consideration these ele- 
ments may be interesting and valuable, but are inconclusive. The 
Wicks Committee found after months of investigation that the aver- 
age production of New York State was between 4,000 to 4,500 
pounds, or from 1,882 quarts to 2,118 quarts per year, or between 
5.2 and 6 quarts per day. This Committee found that the cost of 
producing 4,695 pounds was $107.67, 5,886 pounds was $124.63, 
8,500 pounds was $150.75. From these figures it is plain that the 
cost of keeping cows does not vary proportionately according to 
the amount of their production. In table number 2 it will be seen 
that the cost of maintaining the best cow, which gave more than six 
times the amount of milk of the poorest cow, was only 28c per day, 
while that of the poorest cow was 21c. So that the argument is ir- 
refutable, that it will pay the farmers of New York State to seek, 
acquire and breed better production stock. 

Now what is to be done in the matter? The reasonably efficient 
dairyman has a right to a reasonable profit for his milk, but just as 
the inefficient business man, no matter what may be his business or 
where he may be found, neither makes a profit nor is entitled to 
make a profit, so a price should not be demanded for milk which 
will assure a profit to the inefficient milk producer, especially where 
the burden falls on the innocent consumer. 

But efficient production is entitled to a profit and milk is en- 
titled to the price rating commensurate with its value as a food. 
This means that both the production and the price must be right. 
Similarly both the public and the producer are entitled to the most 

14 



efficient distribution organization that can be devised. Production 
of milk is a great and honorable business in itself and is worthy of 
the undivided and best efforts of any man who engages in it. What- 
ever the method of distribution, it is also worthy of expert and 
undivided attention. Since both production and distribution are 
distinct functions of the milk industry, but each dependent for in- 
dustrial health on the other, the maintenance of a proper division 
of labor based upon co-operation and fair dealing is essential to 
industrial progress and the public service. 

Each creamery should become an educational dairy center 
where the best interests of the producer, distributor and consumer 
are freely discussed. The distributor, as the business agent of the 
industry, should initiate and encourage co-operative buying on the 
basis not of profits to himself, but of a saving to his patrons. Cow 
testing associations should be provided for and encouraged. Quan- 
tity and uniform production should be stimulated by premium pay- 
ments added to the market price and every effort of both distributors 
and producers and of such agencies as may represent the public 
should be contributed to make dairying what it deserves to be, the 
greatest, most interesting and most profitable of our food industries. 
In all this, work well done should have the support and plaudits 
of the press and all other public agencies. Every regulatory agent 
should know the industry from the bottom up and be dominated in 
his work by the ideals commensurate with the dignity of his task. 
Such a policy is possible and will make a satisfied and prosperous 
producer, a happy consumer and an enthusiastic distributor. 



CHAPTER II. 

Inefficiency in the Delivery of the New York Milk Supply. 

In contemplating the inefficiencies of the milk industry, it is 
generally assumed that the delivery of milk in New York City is 
especially subject to this criticism; in fact with most people that is 
about as far as the considerations of inefficiency in the industry go. 
Practically everybody has observed a number of milk delivery 
wagons on his residence block and naturally asks himself if such 
duplicate deliveries are not inefficient. The writer himself has heard 
it said several times that there were seventeen wagons delivering 
milk on every block in New York City, although the basis for this 
conclusion was not given. Since city delivery is one of the functions 
of the milk dealer, his branch of the industry is apt to bear more 
than its share of the popular charges of inefficiency. It becomes, 
therefore, a matter of great interest to inquire just what inefficiencies 
exist in the delivery of milk, and as its delivery starts from the cow 
and ends with the consumer, our study will begin with the delivery 
of milk by the farmer to the shipping station or creamery and will 
end with its receipt by the consumer in New York City. 

15 



Inasmuch as the distance of the farm from the shipping station 
is a factor to be considered in connection with the desirability of 
the farmer's producing plant, it might be equally as logical to con- 
sider country delivery as a production or first cost item. But while 
keeping this in mind, it will here be treated as part of milk delivery. 
The same process of getting the facts bearing upon country de- 
livery was used as in obtaining the production facts in table three 
of the chapter on the inefficiencies of production, that is, the actual 
facts as they existed on the day of inquiry were obtained through 
questions submitted to the creamery superintendents. The answers 
to these questions are certainly very interesting and are tabulated 
in table 6, the purpose being to ascertain the relation existing be- 
tween the amount of milk delivered to the creamery and the number 
of men, wagons and horses used for such delivery. 

The superintendents were also asked to make the following esti- 
mates : 

First, if the Company will give you the contract for bringing 
all of the milk delivered to your creamery within the hours required 
for properly preparing for shipment, how many horses, wagons, 
trucks or automobile trucks in detail would you use? Second, if 
the farmers living within easy access to one another would co-operate 
in bringing their milk to the creamery, how many groups could be 
economically formed and how many wagons, trucks, etc., now used 
could be displaced. 

While a few of the superintendents did not give these estimates, 
enough responded so as to convince one that much may be done to 
simplify the delivery of milk by the farmer to the creamery and 
thereby eliminate some of the original cost elements which the con- 
sumer is ultimately required to pay. 

Before examining table 6 it will again be well to keep in mind 
that the writer is not claiming anything more for these tables than 
appears on the face of them. This table gives the delivery experi- 
ence accurately and positively for a day certain. It can do no 
more than show a tendency. An examination of the matter has 
shown that about half these creameries were receiving in the neigh- 
borhood of their average number of quarts for the year. Others 
were below and still others above the average, but the estimates 
made by the superintendents were generally on the basis of bringing 
to the creamery throughout the year the milk produced, regardless 
of amount. The number of patrons in any event remains prac- 
tically fixed while the organizer of a co-operative delivery system 
would be more concerned with the number of stops and the location 
of the various groups of producers than with the amount of milk 
received. 



16 



TABLE VI 

•9 

i L u> e £ £ 

fr S. S.g £•«, •«„ = £§ £_ 

IS - 2fl S§ 22 g-S S jf II 

8 S § §25 §s* §K Js |» ? r - p 

<3 £ O- ©■ C ©■ 25 K W W 

J . 17 681 48.6 48.6 35.8 14 19 1 2 

C 27 874 35. 35. 21.9 25 40 6 12 

R G .'. 37 1,251 41.7 41.7 39.1 30 32 4 8 

S F .28 1,391 58. 63.2 63.2 22 22 5 5 

L* ' .. 56 1,464 146.4 146.4 104.6 10 14 8 8 

p" ..22 1,549 103. 103. 82. 15 19 3 3 

S'C .... 45 1,858 92.9 109.3 58.1 17 32 6 12 

E C. R.. 45 1,904 112. 112. 59.5 17 32 20 20 

Sol ... 32 2,069 86.2 86.2 51.7 24 40 4 8 

S. Ch. . . 31 2,443 84. 84. 66. 29 37 3 a-t 

B . 42 2,507 109. 109. 80.9 23 31 2 2 

S' 6. . . . 39 2,684 149. 149. 116.7 18 23 4 1 8 

B M. ... 35 2,896 84.6 96.5 69. 30-34 42 4 8 

A 76- 3,272 65.4 65.4 57.4 50 60 12 24 

S. St. . . . 55 3,361 120. 124.5 84. 28 40 7 14 

S. Fr.... 84 4,090 97. 97. 63. 42 65 

E W 79 4,798 200. 200. 109. 24 44 3 a-t 6 

S. J 50 5,069 149.1 149.1 95.6 34 53 7 14 

E. St.... 109 5,199 162.4 173.4 148.5 30 35 

E. H.... 59 5,529 128.6 128.6 97. 43 57 

Shek. ... 37 7,838 326.6 326.6 170.2 24 46 10 20 

S. G. G.. 63 8,301 268. 268. 136. 31 61 3 6 

H 95 12,471 328. 337. 189. 38-37 66h.p. 5 a-t 

S. P 59 13,280 276.6 276.6 195. 48 68 

5. T 73 14,332 311.6 311.6 181. 46 79 la-t 5 

There are some very interesting observations to be made in table 

6. Take for instance creamery C, the second on the list where 874 
quarts or less than 22 cans were received on the day in question. At 
a well organized creamery, 20 cans of milk are often received from 
one wagon with one driver and two horses; yet in this case, 22 cans 
required 25 men and 40 horses. Further down the list, it will be 
noted that creamy "Shek," which received on the same day 7,838 
quarts of milk, more than nine times the above amount, required one 
less man and only six more horses and the "Shek" superintendent 
thinks he could bring in this same quantity of milk from his 37 pro- 
ducers with 10 men and wagons and 20 horses, less than half of those 
actually used. It is also interesting to note that the superintendent 
at C creamery thinks that he could bring in the milk at his creamery 
with 6 men and wagons and 12 horses, thereby eliminating 19 men 
and 28 horses. 

Take the case of A creamery about half way down the list. Here 
50 men and wagons and 60 horses were used to bring to the cream- 
ery that which the superintendent thinks he could gather up and 
deliver on time for preparation and shipment with 12 men and 
wagons and 24 horses, thereby saving the labor of 38 men and 36 

17 



horses. Here considerably more man power and only a little less 
horse power were used on this day than to make the delivery of 
12,471 quarts at creamery H, where the superintendent believes he 
could gather in the milk with five auto trucks. Or take for example 
the case of Creamery J, the first creamery on the list, where the 
superintendent thinks he could do with one wagon and two horses 
what is now being done with 14 men and wagons and 19 horses, and 
similarly creamery B. M. just above creamery A. Take the case of 
16 of these creameries whose superintendents presented estimates of 
the number of men, horses and wagons they would require if organ- 
izing the delivery of milk to their respective creameries for profit 
to themselves under competitive bidding. Where the present delivery 
requires in the aggregate 398 men and wagons and 583 horses, their 
combined reports show that the same delivery could be made with 
102 men and wagons and 166 horses, thus presenting a saving of 
74% in men and wagons and 71% in the number of horses. Or, fig- 
uring on the basis of the work actually being done on the superin- 
tendents' estimates, the delivery of the producers' milk to these 
creameries now requires three times as many men and wagons and 
two and a half times as many horses as is necessary. Or, for specific 
information, take the case of B. M. in table 6. Here the superin- 
tendent, the best posted expert on delivery facts in his community, 
estimates that he can do with 4 men and wagons and 8 horses what 
now requires seven and a half times as many men and wagons and 
five and a half times as many horses as is necessary. 



TABLE VII 



ss 



Creamery 



S Mr. B. 

S Mr. B. 

B. M Mr. G. 

B. M Mr. J. 

R. G Mr. W. 

A Mr. D. 

A Mr. K. 

A Mr. T. 

J Mr. M. 

J Mr. S. 

S. C Mr. H. 

S. C Mr. S. 

Ch Mr. B. 

P Mr. T. 

P Mr. W. 

P Mr. G. 



umber of o « o B 
Quarts t? £ & 

IS |s 


$ | 

5 


C 

C 

■* 
U 


I 

Is 

u 


13.6 


1 2 


2 


24 


8 


23.5 


1 2 


tyz 


23 


17 


8.4 


1 2 


1 


9 


5 


15.5 


1 1 


3 


9 


6 


8.9 


1 1 


3 


12 


12 


23.8 


1 2 


2'/ 2 


10 


8 


11.2 


1 1 


3/2 


10 


10 


249 


L 1 


4 


11 


11 


49.4 


1 2 


3 


16 


9 


20.2 


1 2 


VA 


16 


6 


10.3 


1 2 


VA 


12 


4 


18.8 


1 2 


Ya 


16 


6 


62.3 


1 2 


2 


18 


16 


8.9 


1 2 


2H 


3 


3 


56.4 


1 2 


2/ 2 


24 


17 


11.7 


1 1 


2/2 


25 


13 



18 



Table number 7 contains a number of very interesting obser- 
vations on individual patrons at several of the creameries. The first 
example in the table is interpreted to mean that Mr. B. at Creamery 
S, who maintains 24 cows and milked 8 of them, drove two miles 
with two horses to bring 29 quarts of milk to the creamery, and sim- 
ilarly throughout the table. 

There may be many answers to the implied criticisms of in- 
efficiency contained in these last two tables, for instance, that a 
market must be found for a small amount of milk as well as a large 
amount or that men and horses on the farm especially in winter time 
have nothing to do anyway. But there is no charge here of inef- 
ficiency against all dairymen among whom are many splendid busi- 
ness men. The point that is desired to be made is that there are 
entirely too many instances of the inefficient use of the time of both 
men and horses to justify the New York consumer in paying a price 
for milk which contemplates a profit based upon such methods. It 
would seem that a well organized farm ought to be able to employ 
both its men and its horses to more useful purposes even in the 
winter time, while in the summer there is no question about it. How- 
ever inefficient the city delivery system may be, it is difficult to find 
more glaring instances of the extravagant use of men, horses and 
time than in some of the cases above cited. 

The transportation of milk from the creameries to the city ter- 
minals by the railroads has been lately investigated with great care 
by the Interstate Commerce Commission for the purpose of fixing 
freight rates and, although inefficiencies exist therein, as for example, 
in the case of less than carload lots of milk, this matter has prac- 
tically been settled by the Commission and it will not now be par- 
ticularly profitable to discuss it. The railroad terminals supplying 
New York City are more or less fixed and while the cost of trans- 
portation of milk from New Jersey, where most of the terminals 
center, to the more remote plants of Brooklyn, is an expensive matter 
either with horses and trucks or automobile trucks, both the dealer 
and producer are virtually bound by the situation as it is and neither 
of them is to blame for any inefficiencies that may exist in this part 
of the delivery system. 

But a most interesting field for inquiry is the matter of city retail 
deliveries and our discussion will here be limited to almost alto- 
gether to retail milk sold in bottles. According to Department of 
Health figures, the average number of quarts of milk received in 
New York City for the month of November, 1917, was 1,627,127. 
Of this amount 598,671 quarts were delivered daily from retail 
wagons in bottles. There were engaged in this service 4,978 retail 
wagons which showed a distribution from each of 121 quarts ac- 
cording to the above figures. This is not a fair average of the 
amount of milk sold on these wagons and if it were, it would be 
entirely indefensible. The capacity load under favorable conditions 
for the average milk wagon is about 432 quarts, although several 

19 



of the routemen claim that they have delivered with comparative 
ease between 500 and 600 quarts and one man who is perhaps too 
optimistic, thinks that he could deliver on his route as high as 700 
points including quarters of cream. It would be very easy to esti- 
mate the number of wagons required to make a New York City milk 
delivery, each wagon carrying capacity loads and to fix this as the 
standard of efficiency. But there are very many modifying circum- 
stances which a careful examination of the matter including per- 
sonal conferences with many route drivers in various sections of the 
city have brought forth. 



20 



S3 



CO CO 



m m m 

O O CO 
t* <* i-l 



o © o 


o©o 


NNN 


ooo 


ooo 


00 CO CO 


tN o o 


1-H O i— 1 


CO ^O CO 


CO CO CO 


hwo 


CO CO lO 


On OS O 


vo eo oo 


CN CO OJ 


<n in es 


es (N esi 


<n cs tM 


<N <N rH 


rH i— 1 rH 


rH rH rH 



m o\ 



Wr^fe Hr^fa r* Wr^fc W r^ 



r* 



w 



|^fc l^fe P^fe r^fe 



Cfl*" 1 


* .5 


^ s 


•s 2 


£5 


-BrS 


in i> 


-O O 


iS On 


rHT3 


c «-■ 


!T! o 


-••3 


s >> 


r-t X, 


2« 


O £ 


2 «3 


-== s 


*"0 

-fi S 


-2^ 


4-» M 




(N O 


^J o 


•^ -fi 


££ 


g« 


i— i 72 
rH in 







^ c 






Ph « 




OB 




• • 


► s 


2 "3 


2 'C 


2h3 


§« 


</5 fc 

o 


4) 


o fi 


s* 


6^ 


>H O 

91 


o o 

rH <-» 


S-d 


t< o 


O 4) 


e>« 


«) £ 0) 


*-* > 


** fi 


rC ^ C 


-3<! 
u 


-o o 


to .Sr C3 


CO "3 


CO g 


s&s? 


l-l CO 


^Sr* 



CD 

rS^ 3 

org 
*3"0 2 

J> J5 'fi 



ca ^B 
73 o 

2rJ 

05 O 



<-• o 



E^ 



rS 3 



r to 

to ^J 

o>c/) 

<^ 

rj CN| 



•SCO 

in m 



en 

to „fi 

|S 

° 2 

at- 

ffiW 



2 to 

J3< 



tJT3 
O •; 





r^ 
t"- 

co 




w 


O 


o 






rB 


-3 


U 





S 


V4H 

-3 


rfi 


V 


U« 



us 



UrH 



Uh' 



Ucs 



US 



UtN 



W<N 



Wcs 



WrH* 



h; 



ws 



w5 



tinioj 01 ainoa Pj^ 



■inioj 01 »inon -xok 



l*3A,p a km. j iino H o(j 



(paiuwil83) Xjojtjjaj, 

01 pSJSAipa SlUJOJ |01OX, 



V°I8 J.)d ...li'j.My pay 



110IIIJ9J, 

01 •siaodiuo^ jo of^j 



»!I»Q '°°IJ JJddn 



•ismoiina jo -ojj 



ainaiixBjvj mo^ bIuioj, 



nuiQ iq ojaijq .s 1!w 



•inoy 00 i»|in iMJig 



»U»U,J.dnilB^-J01BA3|3 



O O CO CO t- © 

^J* ^* (N O 1/3 O 
IN <N (N tN IN CN 



o a> 



w-3 

o IN 



no no t-~ in 



co in i-h o 



ooo o < 



i m no no m 



MNH NNH NMi 



•*? o o 
a g m 



W^'fe WtSfa U^fa wESfe W^fe WtSfa" ^fe fa^fa &S 



u 




^ 




PS 


6 










2 

t/5 | 


tu 
.-2 


65 

.2*2 

el 

o o 


tu 

-2 

tin £ 


SB 
o 


J3Z 


■s w 


uz 


•oW 


-ofa 


Is 


•* 2 

tN 


o o 


£3 

NO 




on-5 
mm 


o > 
1— 1 in 


CO *- 

r-i m 


«*! 

CO i^ 


tu 
o > 

If 



ON ON NO < 



tN Tj> rHTjl 



in m m ^ o o inmm cococo cococo no no no ooo ooo ^-^o ooo o o © intflm ooo ooo © o o 

' ~ ' Tj* OQco ON *3* ON On ON NO rnO^H 



© co © no no no r~ r~ r— ciot> o\ao> m in in on ^< no ^h^ho co © © 

tN <N CN HrSH (— I ,— I »— I rH .— I ^H i— I ,— i r-H M N H i— I IN *-* (N <N IN CNCOH 



,-( rH ,-| i-H rt ,— I tN "5 tN 



|S fa ^ fa 



fa w&jfa wes'fa w^fa we^hj w^fa bj^fa Es wE5fa wfcs 



CQ(j 



2 •* 

in m 



>% ■— ' 



6S 



"6 




c 


Er 






tu 
.'1 >. 


CU 


t^ 


C 


c 
U 


I 

o 


4f w • 

4) £ 1) 


q i 


oB . 

.s s 




i2 




fi 


o 


dZ 




^2 


^l 




"c2 


h 

. so 

C 3 


a 

.2 a 
c o 

13 "H 


< £ 

» o 

Sz 


S S 2 


-a E 
<u c 


>> o 


2 s 
c ~ 


2 2 

ON ? 

2m 


Is 


0,0 


(752 


3 <U « 


-S tu 


eoSC 

o o 




II 



in tu 

CO „ 






■o o 



££a 



^H O 

2 «> 

•£< 

i-ilS 



f* 

Ov o 

to -a 



o a 
c32 



OOO <M <N <M OQO OOO COCOCO MOO 
cO^OfO COCOCO HiftO COfOu*) *" 
WN CM CMCMCNJ CM <N CM CM CM i-H 



> O CO tro iO 0> C^ O VO CO CO 



|s fa" Es'u; t$fa £fa 



Co-,-* 

a 2 c 
2-2 C 

■ -- a 
"ofSH 






O O l^,^ 

SU Sco 



2 2 

« o 



oS oh us us us u^: u: 



• 3 
u3 






Table 8 is prepared from notes taken at these conferences in 
the month of December, 1917. Many of the milk companies con- 
solidated about this time, but this table shows the situation very much 
as it had existed for several years past and before the routes of the 
consolidating companies were merged with one another as could have 
been done where duplicate routes existed. 

There are many things to be taken into consideration in the 
delivery of milk. Among these are the character of the houses in the 
neighborhood in which the delivery is made and the number of 
quarts each customer takes; for instance, it is one thing to make de- 
liveries to some of the houses in the Fifth Avenue section where from 
30 to 50 quarts are often delivered to one customer and where extra 
quart customers are the rule and quite another thing to deliver in 
some sections of the East Side where the customers take a small 
amount of milk and most of the houses are without elevators, re- 
quiring the driver in many instances to climb five flights of steps 
in order to serve a single customer with one quart or even a pint of 
milk. It is still different in the sections where detached houses 
prevail. 

Again some routes are concentrated more than others. Many of 
those of the big companies cover but a few city blocks, while most of 
the routes of the smaller companies are large in extent, one route, as 
will be seen in the table, covering more than 13 street miles. It will 
readily be seen that with large customers and concentrated routes 
anything but a capacity load is an evidence of inefficiency in the de- 
livery system, while in the outlying territory of Brooklyn and Queens 
such a route does not obtain even where the greatest efficiency is 
practiced. Table 8, therefore, endeavors to picture the situation with 
reference to the character of the houses, the extent of the routes, the 
amount of milk delivered on each, at the time the data was gathered, 
and estimates of the maximum and minimum deliveries on the route, 
the number of companies operating in the territory in question, the 
number of duplicate delivery wagons on each block, the number of 
upper floor deliveries, the length of time for the first delivery and 
the number of points on the second delivery. It will be seen that in 
no case were there 17 delivery wagons on any block and probably 
there never was such a number. On the other hand, it is obvious 
that from 4 to 10 wagons on each block is not economical. 

To contemplate a really efficient delivery system, capacity loads 
so far as they are consistent with reasonable hours and the physical 
ability of the driver to perform the work of delivery and to make 
his collections would seem to be the starting point. By a capacity 
load is here meant as many quarts of milk as can be loaded and 
carried with safety on an ordinary retail milk wagon. In order, 
therefore, to ascertain how the different localities, character of the 
houses, size of customers and concentration of population both in 
the city and on each route would affect capacity loads, the following 
questions were asked and answered by each one of the drivers inter- 

22 



viewed. (1) If you had the contract at a fair compensation per 
quart for delivering all the milk in the best part of your present 
territory, no other milk company delivering there, (a) how many 
quarts would you take out per wagon, (b) how long would it take 
you to make the delivery? (2) If you had a contract for delivering 
all the milk on the worst part of your territory, (a) how many 
quarts would you take out per wagon, (b) how long would it take 
you to make the delivery? The answers to these questions are very 
interesting and the best opinion on the subject in the city, namely, 
that of the milk drivers themselves, is reflected in the table. As will 
be seen in estimating the situation on the maximum routes, there are 
very few drivers who would not take out a capacity load. On the 
minimum routes, reflecting the very worst delivery conditions, most 
of the drivers would take out loads which are considerably larger 
than the actual amount taken out when the table was compiled, or 
in fact taken out when their routes were at their best. 

The views of the drivers on the daylight delivery system were 
illuminating as bearing upon that proposed reform. Of the 32 
drivers questioned on the matter, 11 were in favor of daylight de- 
liveries and 21 opposed to it. Most of those favoring such delivery 
were drivers on routes where traffic conditions were not congested. 
The majority of those who opposed the idea did so on the grounds, 
first, that in the day time traffic conditions were against it; second, 
that drivers could not obtain the use of the elevators; third, that it 
would subject them to the necessity of listening to complaints and en- 
tering into conversations with customers which would take a great 
deal of their time. Most of the drivers opposed the second deliveries 
as wasteful of time and labor. These second deliveries are of two 
kinds, where the driver makes a second delivery from the company 
delivery depot or where he makes a return call during the course of 
his original delivery. There is no question but what habit enters 
largely into the demand which causes this particular type of in- 
efficiency. 

Without question the city delivery of milk is a great field for 
saving in time and labor of both men and horses. If a milk com- 
pany would deliver 100,000 quarts of milk per day with a few less 
quarts on each route wagon than would pay for the labor of the 
driver, the maintenance of the horse and the up-keep of the equip- 
ment, that company could not survive and would obviously be in a 
worse financial position than a company with a few well organized 
routes whose deliveries approached the capacity of each wagon. 

It should need no argument to convince one that a great number 
of small companies duplicating one another's territory cannot oper- 
ate a New York milk delivery efficiently and that a few large com- 
panies would serve the consumer much more economically providing 
the customer could get a portion of the benefit of the savings made 
by such concentration of the delivery system. Here, then, if at any 
place, is where an intelligent supervising public authority could do 

23 



a splendid work by aiding, after a thorough study of the matter, in 
re-districting the city in such a way as to be helpful both to the milk 
companies and to the public. 

In the city of Philadelphia a few years ago, milk was selling 
at 8c per quart, while in New York it was selling at 9c per quart. 
The Philadelphia milk companies in every way showed as high a 
degree of prosperity as those of the New York companies and yet 
the original cost of the milk was about the same. The writer sur- 
veyed the Philadelphia delivery situation and found that most of the 
larger companies were operating in distinct sections of the city, 
where outside of a little competition from a few smaller companies, 
they were in a position to organize the delivery on a very efficient 
basis. The result was that their routes were larger than the New 
York routes and even at the lower price charged the consumer, an 
equal or even greater amount of profit was realized per wagon. 

Greater New York would probably present greater problems in 
the matter of establishing delivery districts than would Philadelphia. 
At the moment the attitude of many of the organized milk drivers 
is against large loads so that the New York dealers cannot be charged 
with entire responsibility for small loads. Suggestions have been 
made from time to time that the problem could be solved by con- 
tract deliveries, but these are clearly impracticable while the milk 
companies are privately owned because there could be no way of pre- 
serving the individual character of the companies and protecting 
their individual rights under such a system. On the other hand the 
greatest argument for municipal ownership lies in the unrestricted 
efficiencies that could be introduced into city deliveries. If such 
ownership for delivery purposes could be assumed without incur- 
ring very grave and tremendous responsibilities in other respects, a 
good organizer could undoubtedly do wonders in introducing effi- 
ciencies into the deliveries. But so far as this discussion is con- 
cerned, public ownership would be advised only as a last resort 
when every other means of intelligent co-operation between the 
public and the distributors had failed. 

CHAPTER III. 
Inefficiencies in the Control of the New York Milk Supply. 
The control to be discussed in this chapter is sanitary control, 
that is, the check which is brought from some outside agency upon 
one or more of the phases of the milk industry and intended to im- 
prove the character of the milk supply in its health and food value. 
This restraint may have its origin in the Federal, State and Municipal 
governments, or the control may be of a private nature, as where the 
milk dealer on his own initiative seeks to obtain a better and richer 
milk by making it worth the farmers' while to produce it. So far as 
the New York City milk supply is concerned, national and state gov- 
ernments have exercised but a slight control, leaving this field almost 
entirely to the municipality. 

24 



The sanitary control of the milk supply has become one of the 
most important functions of the New York City Board of Health 
operating largely through its Bureau of Food and Drugs. No func- 
tion of the Health Department has been performed with more com- 
mendable zeal and with better results than its work of sanitary milk 
control. It has not always been wise in the methods it has pursued, 
but this is said in the spirit purely of constructive criticism. The 
Federal Government, which has no power in the matter except as 
milk may cross state lines, has confined itself to certain general in- 
vestigations of an educational nature and New York State has largely 
devoted its activities to the control of the milk supply tributary to 
the other cities of the state. 

With the efficiency that has been manifested by the New York 
Department of Health, it is just as well for the New York consumer 
that these other agencies have left the matter largely to the munic- 
ipality because where there is a conflict of authority and inspec- 
tions, as has sometimes been the case even with the slight activity of 
the state department in the New York City territory, the producer is 
apt to become confused and to lose his respect for such control as is 
imposed upon him, especially where inspections have not been im- 
mediately followed up. Besides each controlling agency has its 
own standards and the personal equation is apt to vary considerably. 
The greatest step forward in the sanitary control of the New 
York milk supply was that of dividing the milk into the several 
grades, grade A, grade B, and grade C. This did not necessarily 
mean that all the milk of any one of these grades was of that grade. 
In fact, much of the grade B milk could measure up to the grade A 
standard and even some of the grade C milk might be of the higher 
grades, but the grading of milk did impose certain sanitary requi- 
sites which were valuable in order properly to define sanitary 
methods. Another sanitary measure of almost equal importance 
was the requirement that practically all of the milk supply of New 
York City should be pasteurized, only the certified milk and a very 
small portion of the A grade being exempt. It may possibly be 
questioned if pasteurized milk is as valuable in every respect as high 
grade raw milk, but in a city the size of New York, requiring such 
a vast supply of milk and where so many lives are dependent upon 
the elimination of the primary causes of disease, general pasteuriza- 
tion is the only safe and practical theory. 

The Board of Health has in the past exercised its control 
through the use of inspectors, both city and country, and by the em- 
ployment of its laboratories located in the city. Regulations have 
been adopted for controlling the milk supply and those engaged in 
its production and distribution, and score cards prepared for grad- 
ing the barns and the methods used on the farm, also for the country 
and city creameries, while a form of report was used for obtaining 
a knowledge of the sanitary condition of places in the city where 
milk was sold. 



25 



In general, Board of Health control worked, largely because 
the Department could bring pressure to bear upon the dealers by 
excluding their milk from the city if it did not meet its require- 
ments, thus placing the responsibility on the dealers to bring the 
producers into line as well as themselves. This principle of shifting 
the responsibility of control to the dealers, while effective for the 
time being, is subject to considerable criticism; first, because it tends 
to do just what should not be done, that is, antagonize two of the 
branches of the industry; second, because it is unfair to the dealer 
to hold him entirely responsible for that which may be beyond his 
control; and third, because such a system of public control falls 
with the break down for any reason, in the control of the dealer. 
For instance, since the producers through their organization struck 
for a higher price for their milk and were successful, the main 
anxiety exhibited by both the Department of Health and the dealers 
was for milk. Price has become a controlling factor. It may 
well be doubted whether the same grip is maintained on the methods 
of production on the farm today as before the first strike started. 

In general, the control of the Department of Health has been 
criticized in the following respects. To begin with, the farmers 
have objected to it because of the alleged youth, inexperience and 
incompetency of some of the inspectors. It is hard to tell just how 
far this charge is true and how far the Board of Health can be held 
responsible for it. A man well posted in sanitary matters, may not 
have had the privilege of being born and raised on a farm and in 
consequence thereof is liable to occasional mistakes of a practical 
nature. When these occur it is very damaging to his prestige. Again 
the farmers complain that all the inspectors who visit them do not 
conform to the same standards of scoring and instruction. When 
changes are made in the personnel of the inspectors, variations in 
judgment are of course likely to occur. Without question, however, 
occasional changes are not only necessary, but tend to promote ef- 
ficiency in the inspection system. Many farmers also have learned 
to appraise lightly the follow up methods of the department's in- 
spectors. This deficiency is probably due to an insufficient number 
of inspectors operating under the present system and deserves con- 
sideration. 

There are several criticisms that may be noted, however, which 
do not originate with the producers, but have to do more with the 
efficiency of the system in general. First, the hours used for inspec- 
tion on the farms are usually those between milkings, which means 
that seldom if ever, are the inspectors present when the methods of 
the producers may be actually observed. As clean milk is due 
largely to the use of proper methods on the farm, the lack of direct 
observation here is hurtful. The inspectors' work is a special work 
and should be done at times when the opportunity is given for com- 
plete observation of everything pertaining to the purposes of the 
inspection. 

26 



Another criticism is that of a lack of intensive inspections. By 
this is meant a type of inspection that goes to the bottom of the sit- 
uation in some locality or particular as where the same milk is fol- 
lowed from the cow to the consumer, comparing the methods used in 
the various stages of the milk's progress to the consumer, with the 
increase in bacteria count at each stage as it is handled. By pro- 
viding for more thoroughgoing work of this kind, many real con- 
tributions may be made to sanitary milk control. Third, the lack 
of proper follow up methods on the farm is a real criticism which 
should be met by doing as much work along this line as is possible 
and without any previous notice of any kind, thus at least creating 
the apprehension in the producer's mind that another immediate in- 
spection may be on the way. The follow up work at the country 
creameries has generally been very good and the results have been 
in proportion, but the creameries are more accessible and the work 
requires fewer men. Fourth, the lack of uniformity in the charac- 
ter of the inspections. This criticism should be met by standardizing 
the methods of inspection and the values on the score cards. This 
will promote the effectiveness of the inspections and will add to the 
constructive character of the work done by enabling valuable com- 
parisons to be made between results obtained in various parts of 
the country. Regularly held conventions of inspectors will also tend 
to stimulate more uniform and thorough inspections. 

The above criticisms have been directed at the inspection sys- 
tem, but there is another method of control used by the Board of 
Health, that of the laboratory. The present method of employing 
the laboratory consists of testing for bacteria and butter fat in the 
city laboratories on samples taken both in the city and country. The 
number of bacteria in the milk, as found by the laboratory tests, 
indicates its cleanliness and the amount of butter fat, its richness. 
There is no particular difficulty in testing for butter fat in the city 
laboratories, but trouble has been experienced in getting correct 
results in testing for bacteria, samples of milk taken in the country, 
not because the means are not at hand for properly refrigerating 
the samples of milk taken for analysis, but on account of dirty 
pipettes and sample bottles and in certain cases improper care being 
taken of the samples in transit so that the results do not speak the 
truth. Much irreparable damage may thus be done. 



27 



TABLE IX 

Official Unofficial 

Department Count Company Count Company Laboratory Count 

1. Farmers' Cans at Creamery Tested Milk 

2,000 1,700 3,200 

15,000 27,000 10,300 

4,500 1,200 3,800 

1,600 1,800 2,900 

8,000 6,200 3,500 

3,500 4,200 3,300 



5,600 Av. 7,133 Av. 4,500 Av. 

2. Receiving Vat at Creamery Tested Milk 

7,200 9,800 8,800 

8,200 10,200 8,700 

7,500 11,700 9,700 

10,100 9,300 12,000 

10,500 11,000 3,400 

8,700 10,600 6,100 

9,000 8,100 5,200 

9,700 9,200 4,400 

5,400 6,200 4,700 

7,800 5,000 4,100 

7,000 6,500 3,600 

7,300 8,300 4,300 



8,200 Av. 8,742 Av. 6,500 Av. 

3. Bottles for Shipment at Creamery Gr. A Raw 

8,500 6,700 10,800 

9,800 8,000 12,900 

9,000 11,900 11,800 

8,000 16,700 14,400 

4,600 5,100 3,400 

4,200 1,000 4,500 

9,700 8,900 6,200 

5,600 5,900 3,700 

8,700 7,600 9,100 

8,700 8,600 7,500 

9,300 9,700 11,800 

9,000 9,600 8,100 



7,925 Av. 8,309 Av. 8,766 Av. 

4. Farmers' Cans at Creamery (Untested) 

1,200 1,400 3,500 

4,500 4,800 4,600 

5,000 4,100 3,800 

2,200 1,500 1,900 

1,400 1,600 1,300 

1,200 1,000 900 

58,500 53,200 56,000 

14,000 14,900 18,400 

1,000 800 1,200 

1,700 1,700 1,300 



9,070 Av. 8,500 Av. 9,290 Av. 

28 





Official 




Unofficial 


irtment Count 




Company Count 


Company Laboratory Count 


5. 


Receiving Vat at Creamery 


{Untested) 


40,000 




39,100 




39,800 


30,000 




37,800 




32,700 


25,000 




9,200 




35,000 


57,000 




39,600 




32,000 


25,000 




28,300 




14,700 


30,000 




41,100 




12,900 


22,000 




23,000 




18,300 


28,000 




29,000 




38,700 


12,400 




12,600 




9,200 


10,000 




10,200 




10,000 


18,000 




8,400 




3,700 


12,000 




10,000 




4,400 


25,783 Av. 


24,175 Av. 


20,950 Av. 




6. 


Outlet Heater at Creamery 




5,200 




4,400 




3,500 


3,500 




2,200 




7,200 


2,000 




1,000 




1,900 


1,300 




800 




1,500 


5,000 




2,800 




1,500 


9,500 




5,600 




1,100 


4,416 Av. 


2,834 Av. 


2,783 Av. 




7. 


Outlet Holder at Creamery 




400 




5,000 




600 


2,000 




1,400 




900 


1,200 




400 




200 


900 




1,000 




400 


1,500 




1,700 




600 


4,000 




5,900 




400 


1,667 Av. 


2,500 Av. 


517 Av. 




8. 


Outlet Cooler at Creamery 




1,300 




1,500 




1,400 


2,000 




2,000 




1,200 


800 




400 




700 


800 




400 




300 


4,000 




11,600 




2,500 


1,500 




4,000 




3,600 


1,734 Av. 


3,316 Av. 


1,618 Av. 


$. Bottle for Shipment at Creamery Gr. 


A Past. 


800 




1,200 




2,200 


3,500 




1,200 




1,900 


6,000 




1,200 




700 


1,200 




300 




5,800 


1,400 




600 




900 


900 




600 




400 


400 




600 




500 


600 




500 




200 


3,500 




1,400 




1,900 


3,500 




800 




2,200 


2,500 




1,800 




3,000 


2,000 




2,000 




1,900 


2,191 Av. 


1,018 Av. 


1,800 Av. 






29 







Official Unofficial 

Department Count Company Count Company Laboratory Count 

10. Grade A Raw at Hoboken in Bottles, same as 3 



9,100 


6,100 


7,000 


17,100 


15,200 


11,700 


16,500 


26,800 


23,700 


10,000 


20,300 


8,500 


4,500 


5,900 


9,800 


5,000 


4,500 


2,400 


7,500 


5,000 


10,600 B 


9,000 


7,300 


9,100 


10,000 


8,400 


10,300 


7,100 


6,800 


9,300 


8,800 


8,200 


9,000 


9,300 


9,400 


9,100 


9,498 Av. 


10,334 Av. 


10,042 A 


11. Grade A Past, at Hoboken in Bottles, same 


as 9 


1,500 


12,700 




300 


11,500 




2,500 


3,000 




1,500 


12,700 




1,200 


1,000 




400 


500 




600 


400 




100 


1,000 




2,200 


1,300 




1,700 


1,400 




2,200 


1,200 




2,200 


2,400 




1,367 Av. 


4,092 Av. 




12. 


Various Cases Grade Raw at Hoboken 




9,500 


7,500 


11,500 


9,700 


8,900 


15,200 


9,500 


9,600 


3,400 


8,700 


10,100 


11,900 


13,000 


14,400 


16,000 


11,500 


16,500 


20,900 


11,000 


13,600 


17,000 


14,500 


19,200 


21,700 


12,400 


10,300 


16,000 


12,800 


17,400 


spr. 


12,700 


12,800 


15,500 


12,500 


18,600 


10,100 


11,492 Av. 


13,442 Av. 


14,017 A 


13. 


Various Cases Grade A Past, at Hoboken 


1,100 


1,400 


2,500 


900 


1,300 


5,700 


1,000 


1,400 


8,400 


1,000 


800 


2,500 


5,500 


200 


2,600 


500 


700 


1,800 


1,000 


700 


1,400 


123,000 


2,000 


3,600 


3,000 


1,500 


3,600 


3,300 


2,200 


1,800 


2,000 


2,400 


3,800 


700 


900 


5,000 


11,917 Av. 


1,292 Av. 
30 


3,568/ 



Official 




Unofficial 


tment Count 


Company Count 


Company Laboratory Count 


14. Grade A Raw 


at 41th Street Station, 


same as 3 and 10 


5,000 


9,900 


7,700 


5,000 


7,800 


9,000 


6,000 


11,600 


11,500 


9,000 


10,500 


7,200 


2,300 


6,800 


7,300 


2,000 


5,900 


5,000 


3,500 


4,500 


7,700 B. 


2,500 


5,500 


6,400 


7,000 


8,500 


13,500 


6,700 


6,600 


11,300 


9,500 


11,900 


8,700 


11,000 


10,100 


spr. 


5,792 Av. 


8,384 Av. 


8,664 Av. 


15. Grade A Past. 


at 47th Street Station, 


same as 9 and 11 


700 


800 


2,900 


600 


600 


1,900 


600 


800 


3,000 


2,000 


1,200 


2,200 


800 


500 


900 


600 


900 


1,100 


700 


800 


3,000 B. 


500 


500 


4,200 


3,500 


1,400 


7,000 


1,500 


1,500 


2,500 


2,500 


2,200 


5,800 


3,000 


1,600 


2,500 


1,418 Av. 


1,766 Av. 


3,084 Av. 


16. Grade A Past. Various Cases 


at Station 


2,400 


1,800 


600 


1,000 


2,100 


9,700 


2,200 


3,000 


spr. 


2,500 


3,200 


spr. 


100 


500 


800 


1,300 


1,000 


1,700 


900 


600 


2,500 


200 


400 


1,100 


1,800 


2,100 


3,600 


1,700 


1,400 


3,800 


2,500 


2,300 


spr. 


3,500 


2,000 


spr. 



1,675 Av. 1,292 Av. 2,975 Av. 

The official counts designated above were made from the same samples in 
the laboratory of the Board of Health in New York City, one set by the repre- 
sentative of the Company, the other by a representative of the Health Board. 
Practically all of the unofficial counts were made in the country laboratory of 
the milk company by the company bacteriologist. Those of the unofficial 
counts marked "B" at the side were made in the city laboratory of the milk 
company. 

These counts, while seeming to vary somewhat to those not familiar with 
bacteriology, really show a remarkable similarity, which argues strongly for the 
laboratory test as an index of the cleanliness of milk when the methods are 
similar and when carelessness in the taking and transportation of the samples 
is guarded against or eliminated by the use of country laboratories. 

31 



The following table is the result of an investigation caused by 
a controversy over the correctness of the bacteria test of samples 
taken at a certain New York country creamery and is most interest' 
ing as showing the reliability of the laboratory test as a means of 
ascertaining the number of bacteria in milk and of the probability 
of reasonably uniform results under proper conditions. 

The Board of Health had made the charge that the counts at a 
certain Grade A creamery were very high. Inasmuch as the same 
milk which tested high in bacteria in the Board of Health labora- 
tories was running reasonably low in the country laboratory main- 
tained by the Company which owned the creamery, it became plain 
either that the methods of testing in use at the country creamery 
were wrong or at least different from the methods used in the labora- 
tories of the Board of Health, or that the samples were not properly 
iced and preserved in their shipment to the city laboratory. Since 
their country laboratory man had received part of his education in 
the Board of Health laboratory, the natural assumption by the milk 
Company was that the Board of Health counts did not reflect the 
true situation. 

The Department of Health very generously acquiesced in a joint 
investigation in which duplicate samples should be taken at various 
stages of the progress of the milk through the creamery, in its 
course to the consumer and in the consumer's hands, under the joint 
supervision of both the Company and the Board of Health. It was also 
provided that the official testing should be done in the city by both the 
city and company bacteriologists working independently, that the 
results should be checked by them, and that every phase of the taking, 
icing, transporting and testing of the samples should be most care- 
fully done and checked by the two interests. While the unofficial 
counts in the Company's laboratory, as shown on Table 9, were not 
provided for in the plan, these counts were made with the same 
care as the official counts in order that the Company might have a 
further check on the official investigation. Thus the work of three 
laboratories was available in the investigation. There was a re- 
markable uniformity in results, no wide variations appearing in the 
counts of any of the four laboratories except in one case under 13 
where a sample tested 123,000 by the department's bacteriologist 
but only 2,000 bacteria by the Company's representative and 3,000 
in the Company's unofficial laboratory test. This investigation very 
conclusively pointed to the fact that laboratory results may be re- 
liably uniform when the methods and standards of testing are the 
same and where care is used throughout the process, and certainly 
tended to confirm the Company's contention that the original depart- 
ment samples were not properly cared for either in icing or in their 
transportation. 

While the same results might probably be obtained wherever 
the same degree of care is used as in the above investigation, such 
care is not to be expected in the ordinary course of the inspector's 

32 



work. Therefore, it would seem that if the Board of Health would 
encourage country laboratories by making it worth while for the 
companies to maintain them, many propitious results might be ex- 
pected. As has been seen, it would eliminate questions that might 
arise by reason of improper icing of samples. Unspeakable hard- 
ship to a milk company which is not in a position to protect itself 
as happily in the case of the one in our illustration, may easily grow 
out of such carelessness. By approving the use of country laborator- 
ies this hardship could be prevented. If the Board of Health would 
provide to a certain limited extent for coaching the country labora- 
tory men in the Board of Health's methods of testing, a wonderful 
means of exercising supervisory control could be provided. The 
work of these laboratories properly supervised would be practically 
sufficient as an inspection policy for such companies as maintained 
them and would also be an incentive for other companies to install 
them in order to escape the annoyances of the more frequent inspec- 
tions. No step taken by the Board of Health would give it such 
effective control of the milk supply and be so easy of administration 
and so economical in the use of inspectors. For it would leave them 
practically free to center their work in those districts which neither 
maintained laboratories nor were advanced in the sanitary produc- 
tion of milk. 

Much valuable help has been contributed to the sanitary control 
of the New York milk supply by private welfare organizations, 
among which the New York Milk Committee and the National Com- 
mission on Milk Standards, stand pre-eminent. Much of the initial 
activity and efficiency of the Board of Health has been due to the 
urgings of the Milk Committee. The adoption of standards was 
originally proposed by the National Commission on Milk Standards, 
which still retains its organization for the purpose of promoting the 
adoption of standards by other cities in the country. The work of 
such organizations, when constructive and comprehensive in its 
nature, is very valuable. The tendency, however, is for them to pick 
out one particular interest of the industry for exposure and criticism 
without taking into consideration that to assail unduly one of its 
branches may have a detrimental effect upon the whole industry. 

Perhaps the most successful and permanent type of control is 
that which takes its origin in the private interests of the industry 
itself. Certain of the progressive companies of New York City have 
made the beginnings in co-operation with the producers by 
giving premiums for certain desired results on the farm. For in- 
stance, a premium has been given for barn score, for butter fat, for 
low bacteria tests as shown by laboratory counts. The basis for 
these premiums has often been faulty but the tendency has been in 
the right direction. It is by stimulating this spirit of co-operation and 
eliminating the theory of coercion by the dealer over the producer 
that the Health Department may hope to get the best results in con- 
trol through the milk dealers. 

33 



In its unwillingness in times past to co-operate especially with 
the milk dealers, the Health Department has been less justified 
perhaps than in any other part of its program. In the first 
place, certain regulations have been passed without consulting 
the milk dealers and many times without scientific bases. There 
is also a vast difference between the tests that are made in the 
laboratory and tests that have a basis co-extensive with the industry. 
Regulations founded on laboratory data may not always be suc- 
cessfully applicable to the industry as a whole. A few years ago a 
regulation was passed providing that milk should be pasteurized by 
heating it to 145 degrees and holding it for thirty minutes. This 
regulation was not based upon experiments conducted in the in- 
dustry. The dealers were not consulted. Many of the dealers would 
have been more than willing to co-operate with the Department in 
making a series of experiments which would have fixed a practicable 
basis for a pasteurization regulation. Those dealers who complied 
with the new regulation when passed found that their milk had lost 
commercial value. The cream line was impaired and in many cases 
the taste was affected. Against the protest of the dealers this regu- 
lation was kept in force for several months until finally the Depart- 
ment, seeing the necessity, made an experiment in the various plants 
with the pasteurizing machinery of the dealers and found that the 
dealers were right in their contention, and changed the regulation, 
thus finally doing what should have been done in the first instance. 
Some two years ago a rule was passed by the Board of Health which 
in effect provided that milk that did not conform to the standard of 
8% solids, not fat, would be treated as adulterated milk. On the 
earnest protest of the dealers, this regulation, the formulation of 
which was shown to have no scientific or experimental basis as 
applied to the dairy situation in New York state, was allowed to lapse. 

There is no better place to start the theory of co-operation than 
in the relations between this agency of public regulation and the 
various branches of the industry. The sanitary control of the future 
will never be successful unless this principle of co-operation is 
adopted. The producers are learning the power and value of or- 
ganization and they are backed by interests too powerful to stand 
any great amount of coercion from the city health authorities. The 
dealers will never advance in prestige nor in efficiency until they are 
made to feel by those public agencies which deal with them that 
they are capable, trustworthy and entitled to be consulted in for- 
mulating the regulations that are to be imposed upon them. 

CHAPTER IV. 

The Promotion of Natural Co-operation. 
The facts in the New York milk situation are these: — 
1. The producers principally in the state of New York, have 
formed a combination for their own protection and to con- 
trol the sale of milk to the city. 

34 



2. The New York distributors encouraged by the inapplicability 
of the Sherman Law (Federal anti-trust) and the Donnelly 
Act (New York State anti-combination) to war conditions, 
have consolidated their interests until there is but little com- 
petition among them. 

3. The Federal Food Administration, which has been super- 
vising the price paid for milk in New York City, has dis- 
continued its work. 

4. At the present time there is no existent agency to adjust the 
price to be paid for milk to the producers by the distribu- 
tors. 

5. The distributors and producers cannot agree between them- 
selves upon the price to be paid the producer. Conflict over 
this price may now be a monthly issue. 

6. When the distributor is forced to pay more for milk, he as 
a consequence charges the consumer the additional price in 
full. 

7. The New York milk supply may thus be so curtailed or cut 
off at any time as to imperil the lives of babies and con- 
valescents dependent upon milk for their proper nourish- 
ment or be sold at arbitrary prices. 

8. There is almost entire lack of co-operation between the pro- 
ducers, distributors and the present controlling agents in the 
milk industry. 

9. There is more or less inefficiency in the production, distribu- 
tion and sanitary control of the New York milk supply so 
that it suffers thereby in quantity, quality and price. 

What is to be done? It will be our purpose here to suggest 
and discuss three methods of handling the matter, any one of which 
will probably find supporters according to their economic view- 
point, although everybody must agree that the present situation is 
intolerable. These methods are: — 

1. The promotion of natural co-operation between producer, 
distributor and controlling agent. 

2. Public regulation by a state commission. 

3. Public ownership. 

But first let us consider the results that may be obtained by the 
promotion of co-operation between the producers, distributors and 
controlling agents in the milk industry and by the use of efficient 
business methods and organization throughout the industry. Before 
the abnormal conditions created by America's entrance into the war 
New York City was receiving a first-class milk supply in quantities 
sufficient for the public demand and at a very reasonable price. 
There was a minimum amount of state interference and none of fed- 
eral. The milk was under fair control without the aid of politics or 
law except so far as the police power of the state, delegated to the 
Board of Health, enabled it to pass and enforce the necessary regu- 
lations upon those elements of the industry under its jurisdiction, 

35 



which, however, did not include the producers directly. Why, then, 
was it possible to control the production of milk? Because New 
York City was a good milk market, the best one open to producers. 
Cash was paid for the milk at least once and sometimes twice a 
month and many conveniences were furnished by the dealers such 
as cans and convenient shipping stations. The farmers wanted to 
sell their milk at the New York dealers' shipping stations. This 
fact is important. Make the New York milk market a good one, 
especially let the farmer be paid for what is demanded of him by 
the public. While New York City was getting its milk prior to the 
war, it was not paying the price for its demands either to the pro- 
ducer nor to the dealer and the unrest and consequent organization 
of the producers together with the restraints under which the dealers 
were operating, were indicative of trouble in the whole business 
machinery. 

At first, neither the regulations nor the inspections imposed by 
the Board of Health were onerous and were submitted to without 
serious question. The city inspectors had no legal right on the 
farms, but were permitted to do their work because the producers 
wanted the New York market. However, the regulations began to 
increase in stringency and the demands of the health authorities to 
cost money. New barns had to be built, concrete floors to be laid 
in old barns, ventilation provided, cow barns were prohibited from 
being used for any other purpose, ice had to be stored, and so on. 
The price paid to the farmers did not keep pace with the additional 
cost of production under the new conditions. Premium payments 
were finally adopted by many of the dealers, but were not effective 
for two reasons; first, because the premiums were not properly 
measured and adapted to the situation; second, because the base 
price was lowered so that the additions to the milk checks did not 
have the full effect of premium payments. Not until the war market 
for cheese and condensed milk appeared and the producers had 
become thoroughly organized, did the price of milk to the producer 
become better and then the change was made after a show of com- 
pulsion that in many respects made the matter worse than ever. 
A more concrete diagnosis of the case with suggested remedies 
follows. 

First, a false notion that the price of bottled milk to the con- 
sumer should be a fixed one, winter and summer, regardless of the 
economics of production. 

The fact that for a number of years before the war the price of 
milk in New York City was fixed at 9 cents throughout the year, is 
only another evidence of the close connections between the milk 
business and what are generally regarded as public service functions. 
But, in the case of milk, owing to the great differences in the amounts 
and cost of production at various seasons of the year, such inelas- 
ticity of price tended to hide from the consumer that there was such 
a thing as the cost of production and delivery, while the dealer in 

36 



order to make up for losses which he experiences in the winter 
months, endeavors to buy his milk as cheaply as possible at all 
seasons of the year. It is also less expensive to deliver milk when 
the weather is good than when the streets are blocked with snow and 
ice, and certain routes in summer are so small that they are operated 
at a loss. However, delivery costs are subject to more intelligent 
control than production costs. If the dealer would be permitted to 
arrange his prices to the consumer so that he could make a reason- 
able profit in every month of the year, he would be more reconciled 
to the payment of fair prices to the farmer at all times. 

Second, the failure of the dealers fairly to recognize effort and 
expense on the part of the producer in meeting their requirements, 
and the lack of co-operation between these two interests. 

The best way to recognize effort and expense on the part of the 
producer is to do it directly by the payment of an additional price 
for the same. But such price should be fairly commensurate with 
what is required of the farmer, and this naturally implies some 
standard of measurement. There are at least two bases for premiums, 
one for the extra physical effort and expenditure made by the farmer 
to meet the requirements, i. e., sanitary equipment, the use of sani- 
tary methods, small mouthed pails, ice, etc. The second basis for 
paying premiums should be for results in the cleanliness and rich- 
ness of the milk ascertained by means of laboratories located at the 
country creameries. These laboratories should also be used to 
relate the results with the methods used on the farms, the laboratory 
through its experts thus becoming the educational center of that 
particular dairy section, and every effort on the part of the farmer 
to produce better milk in larger quantities and with more profit to 
himself should be encouraged. The idea of a local dairy center can 
be worked most advantageously to create good will and co-operation 
in the industry. Co-operative buying of cow feed for the farmers, 
cow testing, advising better business methods on the farm and the 
best methods of clean milk production may all become functions of 
such a center. Herein will lie the best means of control that is open 
to the Board of Health. It can well afford to extend every aid in 
its power to the companies who adopt such a policy with the pro- 
ducer. By all means it should encourage the establishment of coun- 
try laboratories for the purpose of promoting the better control of 
the quality of milk produced. It can standardize the methods used 
in these laboratories by giving a certain amount of education in its 
city laboratories to the men who do this work and, when the country 
laboratories and centers are once established, it would be excellent 
policy for the Board of Health to supervise and check the results 
obtained here, rather than by insisting upon the same number of 
direct inspections in such dairy sections, as in one that is not thus 
controlled. This would mean less expense to the Board of Health in 
its inspection work, better and more economical general control, for 
it would thus be free to center its inspection force in those districts 

37 



which are more in need of its time and attention. In short, as 
officially representing the New York public, its work should be 
co-operative as well as regulatory. 

Third, lack of harmony and co-operation between the Board of 
Health and the dealers. 

The time has passed when the milk dealer should be looked 
upon as an evader of the law. The presumption should be in favor 
of his honesty and good faith. Much better and more efficient con- 
trol could be gained by the Board in adopting this attitude towards 
the dealer and working with him in solving his problems of control 
rather than by prosecuting him for isolated instances of the evasion 
of misunderstood regulations. No regulation should be made until 
it was found to be reasonable and based upon experiments made on 
an industrial scale rather than altogether upon laboratory results. 
The Board of Health representing the city and the consumer should 
rejoice in the prosperity of the dealer and no regulations should be 
passed that were not reasonable and did not guarantee a more salable 
as well as a more sanitary product. 

Fourth, a certain amount of interference on the part of the 
Board of Health in the business plans and individuality of the 
dealer. 

This is not a prominent cause of trouble in the industry, but it 
is an important consideration. The milk dealer is a business man 
and should be encouraged to put individuality into his business but 
without making it impossible for him to comply with the Board of 
Health regulations. He should be allowed to honestly advertise his 
product, to put as much character into his packages as possible and 
in every way to build up the integrity of his organization and his 
position as a business man. 

Fifth, lack of business methods and organization. 

This fault, as has been shown in former chapters, is a leading 
cause of most of the inefficiencies in production, distribution and 
control. A better understanding of the industry as a whole on the 
part of each branch, the application of intelligent analysis to spe- 
cific problems, the use of simple accounting processes and the 
stopping of losses will do much to put the industry on a more 
efficient basis. 

The foregoing criticisms of the situation and the recommenda- 
tions made are not purely theoretical. Natural co-operation has 
already done much that is tangible in certain instances to create 
vastly improved conditions. 

In a certain valley near the center of New York state are three 
country creameries about four miles apart and on the same railroad 
line. Each creamery is the center of an ideal farm and dairying 
section with a list of patrons about equally intelligent and probably 
above the average in this respect. Two of these creameries were 
owned by a New York milk company not overly progressive in its 
methods or its attitude toward its producers. Fortunately, the third 
creamery fell into different hands. 

38 



In the year 1909 an innovation in country creamery manage- 
ment was here initiated, which is worthy of a prominent place in 
the history of dairying. The New York Milk Committee, which had 
been maintaining a number of infant feeding stations in New York 
City and had been using certified milk for feeding the babies regis- 
tered therein, promoted a separate project among its friends and 
contributors known as the New York Dairy Demonstration Company. 
This was for the purpose first of obtaining a clean milk for its babies 
at a cheaper price than it was paying for certified milk, thereby 
enabling it to reach a larger number of infants with the funds at its 
disposal, and second of demonstrating that an unlimited amount of 
milk approaching the certified in wholesomeness and cleanliness 
could be obtained at the lower cost desired. This was to be accom- 
plished by centralizing the more essential requisites of sanitary milk 
production, by installing a country laboratory for the purpose of 
relating the results obtained therein with the work done on the 
farms, and by securing the co-operation of the producers by inaugur- 
ating the policy of paying premiums in addition to the prevailing 
market price of milk which premiums should be based on approved 
results obtained by them. They hoped at the same time to create a 
model system of producing clean milk that would be copied by at 
least some of the milk companies supplying New York City. While 
this experiment and the country creamery situation growing out of it 
had its ups and downs, two indisputable facts became apparent, one 
being that, properly managed, the new theory was practical from 
both the sanitary and the commercial standpoint, and the second 
being that no plan of creamery policy ever produced better efficiency 
results in the matter of quality, quantity and the placement of the 
product for profit and with a resulting contentment and spirit of 
co-operation among the producers. 

This first conclusion was borne out by the accounting records 
of the companies operating the creamery, the second one by the fol- 
lowing facts. In the month when the dealer who owned creameries 
1 and 2 sold his business, creamery number 3 differing only in man- 
agement from the other two, received 268,342 quarts while creamery 
number 1 received only 52,704 quarts and creamery number 2, 
56,424 quarts, thus demonstrating that natural co-operation is both 
appreciated by the farmers and is profitable from a business stand- 
point. After two years' experience under what were supposed to be 
trying times for the milk industry, creamery number 3 for the same 
month in 1917 received 377,848 quarts, a gain of 41%. In Sep- 
tember, 1916, when the great demand arose among the farmers for 
more money for their milk, not a complaint was heard among the 
patrons at this creamery and they were induced with great difficulty 
to join in the strike because of general satisfaction with their own 
position. The fame of the movement spread abroad and many farms 
tributary to the creamery were sold at greatly enhanced prices by 
reason of the favorable dairy market. Unfortunately, however, this 

39 



plan of creamery management did not find general favor with the 
New York dealers, for in the face of a steadily growing and apparent 
discontentment among the producers, they were not inclined to take 
the movement seriously. It is a noteworthy fact that very many of 
dealers today find their business interests absorbed by larger and 
more strongly financed companies or their buying policy controlled 
by the producer's organization. 

Much more probably might have been done toward natural 
co-operation between the dealers and producers in creamery 3, but 
its almost isolated success upon the co-operative theory is simply 
indicative of the unprogressive business methods that have to a large 
extent in the past dominated the milk industry. Of course, as has 
been indicated before, there was little encouragement from the public 
for a more constructive policy. To be sure, a system of barn score 
and butter fat premiums was established by some of the bigger com- 
panies prior to September, 1916, but this system was neither correct 
in theory nor in the justice of its applications. Such premiums were 
never generally regarded by the producer as a step toward co-opera- 
tion, but rather as a part of the just price withheld which had to be 
doubly earned in order to be received. 

During the year 1918, a milk exposition was held in Grand 
Central Palace, New York City, at which the dairymen, the distrib- 
utors, the Department of Health, the State Department and the con- 
sumers were represented. This show was so great a success that it 
was voted to make it an annual affair. At such a meeting as this 
the foundation might well be laid for co-operation. 

The demand of the times in all industry is not so much for asso- 
ciations which simply hold annual meetings, read and discuss tech- 
nical papers and indulge in industrial politics but rather for indus- 
trial agencies properly and permanently manned by responsible ex- 
perts in which all the divergent interests unite to constructively study 
those problems common to all, to acquaint the public with whatever 
is of real value in the industry and thus by pooling contributions to 
economically build and promote and indirectly to throw into the 
background those little differences which, if not properly guarded 
against, tend to destroy. 

There is one common cause, certainly, upon which both the 
producers and dealers in the milk industry may profitably join, and 
that is the popularization of the use of milk as a food, not only for 
babies and children but for people of all ages. Within the past 
two or three years much scientific work has been done by thoroughly 
responsible men which shows the comparatively high food value of 
milk. If the dealers and producers will join hands in a great cam- 
paign of publicity many of the petty differences that at present 
hinder the industry will be forgotten. 

There are also men outside the industry who know its problems 
and are interested in its normal development in private hands. They 
might be helpful in laying the plans for co-operation. At least it is 

40 



of great importance that those who are engaged in the business in 
any of its phases awake to the situation and perform their several 
functions with a better understanding of the importance and dignity 
of their calling and with greater regard for the rights of the great 
public they are serving, or face the consequences of possible action 
on the part of the public for its own protection. 

CHAPTER V. 

Public Regulation by State Commission 

In the last chapter we have outlined a method by which the milk 
industry as a whole and the separate interests operating in it would 
be materially helped by the recognition on the part of each of the 
several interests of the requisites for the healthful existence of the 
others and by the introduction throughout the industry of co-opera- 
tion. Instances of successful co-operation in the industry in the past 
and the lines along which this principle might properly be extended, 
were pointed out, leading to the conclusion that if the several inter- 
ests will co-operate naturally and on their own initiative, this will 
offer the best solution to the ills that beset the milk business. How- 
ever, the great trouble is that they have not co-operated in the past 
and may not do so in the future unless some agency outside the 
industry furnishes the necessary initiative to start the movement. 
But an agency to perform this function would have to be clothed with 
sufficient authority and gauged along lines broad enough to have the 
prestige and to command the respect of those engaged in or 
dependent upon the industry. Such an agency must needs have the 
power to compel as well as the ability to initiate and must derive its 
power directly or indirectly from that source which is charged with 
the duty of protecting the people in their rights, health, and welfare, 
even to the extent of regulating the business affairs of the private 
interests which serve them. This source of power is the state itself 
and the regulating force with which the state is endowed and which 
it has the power to delegate to a properly constructed agency for 
the purpose of protecting the people of New York City in their milk 
supply, is called the police power of the state. 

Let us therefore examine the utility and legality of a commis- 
sion appointed for the purpose, having delegated to it the police 
power of the state of New York. Such a commission should derive 
its authority and appointment directly from the state rather than 
from the municipality, both for the reason that its functions should 
be exercised not only for New York City, but for the other munici- 
palities of the state as well, and in order that such a commission 
might have the fullest possible authority over production and the 
producers who come within its jurisdiction. What we say, therefore, 
in the matter of its powers and duties over the milk supply of New 
York City may, though differing somewhat in detail, be said of its 
powers and duties over the milk supply of the other cities of the 
state. 

41 



Such a commission might be composed of from three to seven 
members, there being represented upon it the producer, distributor, 
consumer, the state and the city. These men should be thoroughly 
practical and progressive and above all things should be representa- 
tive of their several interests, on a co-operative basis. The term of 
their office and the character of their compensation should be such 
as to attract high-class men to make service on the commission their 
sole business and to justify them in devoting all their time and 
energy to its work; and their authority should be final on all juris- 
dictional milk matters referred to them. Their functions should be 
investigatory, supervisory, educational and compulsory. The com- 
mission should make a thorough inquiry into the methods used in 
production, their efficiency and purpose. This would involve not 
only matters of quality, but also of quantity, of the cost of labor, 
cows, feed, ice, country distribution and handling of shipping and 
the character of profit demanded in the country. At the city end, it 
should view the organization, conditions and efficiency of milk 
delivery, the equipment used, the cost entailed and the final price 
demanded of the consumer with the nature and amount of the profit 
involved. 

The conditions of demand and supply of the milk market should 
be studied and considered, the permanency and the regularity of its 
requirements, the certainty of pay and the adequacy of price; also 
the capital invested throughout the industry, the efficient construction 
and placement of pasteurizing plants and the reasonableness and 
purpose of sanitary regulations. All these investigations should be 
made on an industrial scale and with the whole industry in mind. 
The commissioners should be thoroughly familiar with the progres- 
sive development of the industry in all parts of the country and 
should relate and compare this progress with their own work. 

Then comes the supervisory and educational part of their work. 
The commissioners should have the power to license both producers 
and distributors. With their knowledge of the business based upon 
broad investigation and a thorough understanding of industrial con- 
ditions generally, the proper situation has developed for them to 
intelligently supervise the industry throughout and to organize and 
provide various educational media and methods. 

Their recommendation and findings made after such a study 
would be entitled to and would win the respect of all the elements to 
be controlled, and thus the foundation for taking the initiative in 
co-operation would be accorded to the commissioners without ques- 
tion. Such a leadership would be a natural one and resort of the 
commission to its compulsory powers would thus be only occasional, 
but when necessary to use it, the wilful wastage of good milk by dis- 
gruntled producers and the stoppage of New York's milk supply 
could be summarily dealt with. 

The leading aim of this commission should be to reconcile the 
use of the police power with which it is endowed with the needs and 

42 



development of the industry. If unintelligently applied, the police 
power may be distinctly repressive and in no way developmental, 
but if it can be used with the constructive ideal in mind and with a 
thorough understanding of the needs of the industry based upon 
practical experience and investigations it may well become the indis- 
pensable aid of the public in securing its rights without hurtfully 
interfering with the full play of that private business initiative which 
is so necessary to the growth of the industry. If such a commission 
could bring about successful co-operation, efficient methods of con- 
trol and insure a reasonable profit to the producers and distributors 
for the performance of their functions, the New York milk market 
would become so good as to attract milk from all localities. Our 
commission could have legal jurisdiction only over the producers in 
New York State, but the industry governed by such intelligent direc- 
tion would be so far in advance of the situation in outside states and 
the market conditions created thereby would become so good that, 
in order to enjoy its benefits, outsiders would seek the New York 
market and would willingly submit to any reasonable licensing and 
inspection requirements demanded by the commission. In other 
words, the co-operative, intelligently directed part of the industry 
would dominate the rest. There could be enough milk produced in 
the State of New York alone to prevent undue hardship in case of 
any farmers' combination in the outside states. The work of such a 
commission could therefore insure milk in sufficient quantities and 
controlled along much broader lines than the city Department of 
Health has been able to perform this function in the past. 

Let us now consider the legal status of such a commission. 
Can it be appointed under the laws of New York State and can it 
exercise such powers as would make it the effective instrument of the 
people for protecting them in their milk supply. There are several 
positive things it would have to do. 

1. Pass and enforce sanitary regulations. 

2. License dealers and dairymen and revoke licenses. 

3. Enforce inspections. 

4. Supervise and regulate milk markets. 

5. Supervise and regulate the methods of production and distri- 
bution with a view to promoting efficiency. 

6. Regulate prices. 

But first there are a number of general questions involved which 
it will be well to answer. 

1. What is the nature of the police power of the state. 

2. Can the police power be delegated to a milk commission. 

3. Is the police power applicable to the regulation of the milk 
industry. 

4. What are the general grounds for the application of the 
police power to the milk industry. 

In Com. vs. Alger 7 Cush. 53, C. J. Shaw defined the police 
power to be, "The power vested in the legislature by the constitution, 

43 



to make, ordain and establish all manner of wholesome and rea- 
sonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or with- 
out, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be for 
the good and welfare of the commonwealth. It is much easier to 
perceive and realize the existence and sources of this power than to 
mark its boundaries or prescribe limits to its exercise." Judge 
O'Brien in People ex rel Armstrong vs. Warden of City Prison says, 
"All business and occupations are conducted subject to the exercise 
of the police power. Individual freedom must yield to regulations 
for the public good." 

It is said in 8 Cyc. 865, "A legislature cannot, by any contract, 
divest itself of its power, but it may delegate its power and jurisdic- 
tion to courts, municipalities, or committies to adopt police meas- 
ures," citing Woodruff vs. New York etc. R. R. Co. 59 Conn. 63, 
where a commission is empowered to enforce change of grade cross- 
ings. New York State's most popularly known commission, exer- 
cising broad jurisdiction in the City of New York, is the Public 
Service Commission, the constitutionality of which was lately raised 
in Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co. vs. Straus 245 Fed. 132. A Milk 
Commission undoubtedly could be appointed by state authority 
endowed with the police power. 

Our next inquiry is in regard to the application of the police 
power to the regulation of the milk industry. As we saw in People 
vs. Warden above, "All business and occupations are conducted sub- 
ject thereto." In St. Louis vs. Liessing, I L.R.A. N.S. 921, the Court 
says, "Perhaps on no one subject has this police power been affirmed 
so often as the right to inspect and regulate the sale of milk and 
cream." 

In a note to the above, in which many of the leading cases are 
cited, the annotator commenting says, "The group of cases here 
reported well illustrate the attitude of the courts generally toward 
police regulation of the milk supply. The importance of securing to 
the community at large cleanliness, wholesomeness and purity in so 
important a food as milk, has led to the very general enactment 
throughout the country of regulations as to the standard of quality 
of milk sold, the care and feeding of milch cattle, and the sale of 
the product. And while such regulations have been frequently 
assailed upon the ground that they deprive the dairyman and milk 
vendor of their property without due process of law, or unjustly 
discriminate against them, the regulations have been sustained with 
practical unanimity, whether made by the state through the operation 
of a general statute or by the municipal council through local ordi- 
nances. Among the cases cited here are People vs. Cipperly 101 
N.Y. 634, People vs. West 106 N. Y. 293, and many others. 

Our fourth question, as to what are the general grounds for the 
application of the police power to the milk industry, is easily 
answered. In People vs. Warden 183 N.Y. 220, before cited, the 
Court says, "It may be laid down as a general principle that legisla- 

44 



tion is valid which has for its object the promotion of the public 
health, safety, morals, convenience and general welfare or the pre- 
vention of fraud or immorality." However, the very nature of our 
subject being a food makes us think instinctively of health, and so 
it is that the digests are full of cases where milk, its production and 
distribution have been regulated on the ground of public health. 
People vs. Kibler 106 N.Y. 321, Bellows vs. Raynor 207 N.Y. 389, 
People vs. Vandecarr 175 N.Y. 440, State vs. Broadbelt 89 Md. 565, 
Adams vs. Milwaukee 129 N.W. 518, State vs. Layton 160 Mo. 498, 
and many others. 

We now approach the solution of our specific problem. With 
the milk commission established, endowed with the police power of 
the state, will this power be broad enough to cover those positive 
functions which it will have to perform in order to make it effective. 
Could a milk commission pass sanitary regulations protecting the 
quality of milk, creating standards of cleanliness, providing for 
inspections and licensing of milk vendors to its markets, even those 
living outside its jurisdiction, and enforce them? Would it have 
power to regulate its milk market and sales? There are innumerable 
decisions which support this right of municipalities as against the 
claim that they deprive the dairyman or the milk vendor of their, 
property without due process of law, or unjustly discriminate against 
them. It is simply conforming to the general proposition; if you 
sell milk in my market, you must respect my regulations. 

In Bellows vs. Raynor 207 N.Y. 389, the plaintiff engaged in 
dairy farming and a member of a creamery company claimed that 
the defendant, Chief of the Division of Sanitary Inspection of New 
York City, wrongfully entered upon his premises and interfered with 
his business. The defendant notified plaintiff of certain unsanitary 
conditions on his dairy farm which if not improved would exclude 
his milk from the city. Later a letter was addressed to the creamery 
company in which it was informed that the rules of the Department 
were still being violated and gave notice not to include plaintiff's 
milk in future shipments. The Court held that this was a valid 
exercise of the police power of the Department of Health of New 
York City, that it is charged by law with the responsibility of pre- 
venting pestilence and disease in the city of New York. That its 
duty is to enforce all laws applicable to the preservation of human 
life and the promotion of health — that it has the right to exact from 
all shippers a compliance with such conditions as would reasonably 
tend to a pure product for the use of its citizens as a condition of 
permitting its sale in the city of New York. The Court through 
Judge Gray said, "It is unreasonable to say that the Department of 
Health in exercising such power renders itself amenable to the 
charge of exercising an extra territorial jurisdiction." Other cases 
along the same lines are People vs. Vandicarr 175 N.Y. 440, State 
vs. Broadbelt 89 Md. 565, State vs. Nelson 66 Minn., and many 
others. 

45 



Whatever powers the city or its Department of Health might 
have in this regard could be delegated to a properly authorized Milk 
Commission, and vendors of milk outside the state would have to 
comply with its sanitary regulations before entering the state mar- 
kets with their product. The sanitary code of the City of New York 
requiring license for the sale of milk is constitutional ; People ex rel 
Liebeman vs. Vandicarr 175 N.Y. 440, People ex rel Lodes vs. Board 
of Health 189 N.Y. 187. Inasmuch as the police powers exercised 
by both a milk commission and a municipality are delegated by the 
state and their authority is of equal standing, the commission would 
have the same power to license dealers and dairymen and to revoke 
their licenses, these not being vested rights. 

As to markets and market places, it is said in 28 Cyc. 930, "The 
authority to establish and regulate markets falls within the police 
power of the states, which may be delegated to municipal corpora- 
tions, and is a particularly appropriate subject for municipal regu- 
lation, and they may adopt and enforce any reasonable and proper 
rules and regulations in regard to the market and the business 
transacted there." This would enable the commission to study and 
establish municipal milk markets if the interests of the public and 
the industry demanded it. 

All the above matters are supported by well settled decisions 
which are just as applicable to the work of a milk commission as 
any other agency of the state. We now come to the consideration of 
a different type of function, that of supervising and regulating the 
methods of production and distribution with a view to promoting 
efficiency and the regulation of prices. The less the manifestation of 
police power in the exercise of these functions the better. Herein 
would appear the ability, breadth and good judgment of the com- 
missioners. Herein the opportunity and demand for leadership 
based on a solid understanding of conditions. An unprejudiced 
study of the problems of the industry would give the understanding 
and the foundation for leadership. Then above everything else the 
decisions of the commissioners must be fair. A process of educa- 
tion in better organization and methods for both production and 
distribution would be successful in proportion to the faith which 
those in the business had in the wisdom and fairness of the com- 
mission. Here co-operation could be initiated. 

But something more might be required than mere supervision 
and education. The commission must have the power to act, apply 
pressure and enforce its conclusions. Every legal sanction that sup- 
ports the use of the police power in its other health and welfare 
regulations would obtain in promoting efficiency of production and 
distribution where there were likely to be insufficient quantities of 
milk for the public welfare or where the commission was respon- 
sible to the people for maintaining a just price for the milk. The 
commission would find its main authority for supervising and regu- 
lating efficiency in its licensing and price fixing powers. This leads 
to the question, what powers would the commission have over prices. 

46 



The regulation of prices is supported both by historical pre- 
cedent and legal decisions. 
Parliamentary Regulation of Rates. 

In 1266 A. D. the great staples like wool and food were regu- 
lated. Henry III. regulated the price of bread and ale, according to 
the price of wheat and barley, and forbade cornering the market. 
(51 Hen. 3, Stat. 1.) 

In 1337 it was made a felony to export wool. (11 Ed. 3, 
Cap. 1.) 

In 1349 butchers, fish mongers, bakers, poulterers and all other 
sellers of all manner of victuals were bound to sell for reasonable 
price. (23 Ed. 3, Cap. 1.) 
In the Colonies. 

In 1635 Massachusetts merchants were forbidden to charge 
excessive prices. (Mass. Colon. Laws 673, p. 120.) 

Chief Justice Waite in Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U.S., 113, said, "In 
their exercise it has been customary in England from time imme- 
morial, and in this country from its first colonization, to regulate 
ferries, common carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, inkeepers, etc. 
To this day statutes are to be found in many of the states upon some 
or all of these subjects, and we think it has never yet been success- 
fully contended that such legislation came within any of the consti- 
tutional prohibitions against interference with private property." 

Continuing, the Court said in the same case, "This brings us to 
inquire as to the principles upon which this power of regulation 
rests, in order that we may determine what is within and what 
without its operative effect. Looking, then, to the common law, from 
whence comes the right which the constitution protects, we find that 
when private property is affected with a public interest it ceases to 
be juris private only." This was said by Lord Chief Justice Hale 
more than two hundred years ago, in his treatise De Portibus Maris 1 
Harg Law Tracts 78, and has been accepted without objection as an 
essential element in the law of property ever since. Property does 
become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to 
make it of public consequence and affect the community at large. 
When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the 
public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest 
in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the 
common good. . . . But we need go no further. Enough has 
already been said to show that, when private property is devoted to a 
public use, it is subject to public regulation. It remains only to 
ascertain whether the (grain) warehouse of these plaintiffs in error, 
and the business which is carried on there, come within the opera- 
tion of this principle. . . . It is difficult to see why if the 
common carriers or the miller, or the ferryman, or the baker, or the 
cartman pursues a public employment and exercises a sort of public 
office, these plaintiffs in error do not." 

47 



It is said in 8 Cyc. 1117, "When a business is of such a nature 
as to be effected with a public interest, the state may require that 
charges shall be reasonable, and may adopt measures necessary to 
secure that result." Dillon vs. Erie R. R. Co., 43 N.Y., suppl. 320, 
Munn vs. Illinois 94 U.S. 113. In Budd vs. People 143 U.S. 517, it 
was held that the laws of New York (1888) C. 581, fixing a maxi- 
mum charge of 5/8 of a cent per bushel for elevating grain is not 
taking private property without due process of law, but is a valid 
exercise of the police power, as well in its application to elevators 
owned by private individuals as to those owned by companies hav- 
ing chartered privileges from the state, since the business as carried 
on is affected with a public interest and is a practical monopoly. 

"A power granted to the corporation of the City of Mobile to 
license bakers and regulate the weight and price of bread, and pro- 
hibit the baking for sale, except by those licensed, is not contrary to 
the constitution of the state." Mayor of Mobile vs. Vuille 3, Ala. 137. 

The following cases have held that it is competent for the legis- 
lature of a state through the agency of a commission when the wel- 
fare of the public is at stake to limit and regulate charges and prices. 
Carriers. 

Commonwealth vs. Inter. Consol. Lt. Ry. Co. 187 Mass. 436 

San Antonio Traction Co. vs. Altgelt 815 W. 106-200 U.S. 304. 

See American & English Encyc. Vol. 23 p. 655 and cases cited. 

Stone vs. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 116 U.S. 307. 

Dillon vs. Erie R. R. Co., 19 Misc. 116. 

Waldorf Astoria Co. vs. City of N.Y. 212 N.Y. 97. 
Water Companies. 

Tampa Water Works Co. vs. City of Tampa 199 U.S. 241. 

San Diego Water Co. vs. City of San Diego 118 Cal. 556. 

Spring Valley Waterworks vs. Bartlett 16 Fed. 615. 
Stockyard Companies. 

Cotting & Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 82 Fed. 839. 
Gas Companies. 

Richman & Consolidated Gas. Co. of N. Y. 114 A.D. 216, 
affirmed 186 N.Y. 209. 

Trustees of Village of Saratoga Springs vs. Saratoga Gas, Elec- 
tric Light & Power Co., 191 N.Y. 123. 
Reversing 122 A.D. 203. 
Grain Elevators. 

Budd vs. People 143 U.S. 517. 

People vs. Walsh, 117 N.Y. 1. 

Brass vs. State, 153 U.S. 391. 

In Re Annan, 50 Hun 413. 

Under the sanction of these decisions, then, could not a milk 
commission regulate the price of milk? In the language of Justice 
Waite on Munn vs. Illinois above quoted, "It is difficult to see why 
if the common carrier or the miller or the ferryman or the baker or 
the cartman pursues a public employment," prices can be fixed for 

48 



these services, the milk business is not equally in the public interest 
and equally subject to price regulation. 

It would seem, therefore, both in theory and legally, that a 
properly constituted milk commission would be able to exert a most 
beneficent influence upon the industry. But if it would properly 
serve the people in fixing and regulating prices, it must take as its 
standard an efficiently conducted industry throughout and must be 
clothed with power both to investigate and compel that efficiency a» 
a prerequisite to granting licenses for entrance to its markets. The 
main difficulties with the practical carrying out of the idea would be 
of a political nature. It is not only the up-state dairyman who is in 
conflict with the city dealer, but there has been for years a division 
between New York City and the up-state voter. Those state officers 
who would probably have the appointing power under our scheme 
would hesitate to take any stand that might be construed as antago- 
nistic to the farmer. While this plan of public regulation by a com- 
mission could be so administered as to be a great blessing to the 
New York State dairyman, it is very likely he would not see it 
that way. 

Then, again, the personnel of the commissioners would have to 
be right. If politics could be kept out of their appointment and the 
ideal of service could be brought into their work a splendid economic 
contribution might be made by them. If politics did enter into their 
appointment and work, the commission would be detrimental to thq 
industry and to the public. Herein lies the rub. 

CHAPTER VI. 
The Case for Public Ownership of the Milk Industry. 

When a business of real public importance can be carried on 
advantageously only upon so large a scale as to render the liberty of 
competition almost illusory, it is an unthrifty dispensation of the 
public resources that several costly sets of arrangements should be 
kept up for the purpose of rendering the community this one service. 
It is much better to treat it at once as a public function, and, if it 
be not such as the government could beneficially undertake, it should 
be made over entire to the company or association which will per- 
form it on the best terms for the public. — John Stuart Mill. 

We come now to consider the proposition that the City of New 
York should acquire the milk industry, not upon the basis of the 
socialist, whose economic reasoning would justify the public owner- 
ship of any industry, but upon the grounds that are usually given 
and legally maintained, under our present theories of private owner- 
ship and so-called capitalistic economy, for the ownership by munici- 
palities of public utilities and public service agencies. We have 
previously alluded to the fact that those who are engaged in the 
various functions of the milk business, either in producing or dis- 
tributing , are performing a public service. In the former chapter 
we have presented legal opinion to the effect that those who devote 

49 



their property to the milk business are devoting it to a use in which 
the public has an interest, and therefore in effect grants to the 
public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by 
the public for the common good. We must now consider whether 
that interest of the public is so great as to justify its assuming the 
ownership under the law just as it does for instance in the case of 
municipally owned water works. 

There is something incongruous, perhaps, in comparing and 
likening the public ownership of the water supply to that of the 
milk supply. But there is much that is similar in the two cases, and 
in selecting water for comparison, we have not gone to the shady 
borderland of propositions for municipal ownership, but have chosen 
something on which the reasoning and legal decision are well 
settled. 

"The general power given a municipal corporation in respect 
to police regulations, the preservation of the public health, and the 
general welfare includes the power to establish municipal water- 
works." Ellinwood vs. Reedsburg, 91 Wis. 131, 64 N.W. 885. 

In Grace vs. Hawkinsville, 101 Ga. 553, 28 S.E. 1021, the rule 
is recognized that a municipal corporation has power, under a gen- 
eral welfare clause in its charter, to construct and maintain water- 
works necessary to provide citizens with water for drinking and 
other domestic purposes. 

"A supply of water for municipal purposes, as well as for the 
use of its inhabitants, is a city purpose within a constitutional pro- 
vision forbidding the incurring of indebtedness except for city pur- 
poses." Re Comstock, 25 N.Y. S.R. 611, 5 N.Y. Supp. 874. 

"A municipal corporation does not lose its municipal character, 
and become a private or business corporation, by erecting water- 
works and supplying its citizens with water." Lehigh Water Co.'s 
Appeal, 102 Pa. 515. 

In Heqnembourg vs. City of Dunkirk 49 Hun 550, the Court, in 
holding that the construction and operation by a city of a plant for 
the purpose of supplying electric lights to the city and its inhabitants 
is a city purpose, says, "Numerous cases have arisen in which large 
and extensive waterworks had been established for the purpose of 
supplying cities and villages with pure, wholesome water. In such 
cases, the water has been furnished to private consumers at fixed 
rates and the power to do this has been sanctioned by the courts as 
one properly exercised by the municipal government, pure and 
wholesome water being recognized as necessary to preserve the public 
health, and in various cities gas works have been established in 
which light has been supplied by the municipality to private resi- 
dences at a fixed charge as well as used for the lighting of the 
streets." 

Dillon in his work on Municipal Corporations on page 2118, 
says, "The furnishing of a supply of water, not only as protection 
against fires and for sanitary purposes, including sewers, but also for 

50 



the individual use of the inhabitants of a municipality, has always 
been recognized as a proper public and municipal purpose, based 
upon the inherent and palpable necessity of the case and the customs 
of thickly settled communities." 

Let us look at milk and water side by side. 

First Parallel. 

Milk 

1. Municipality uses it propor- 
tionately less. 

2. Universally used by inhab- 
itants. 

3. Constantly used. 

4. Essential to public health. 

5. No substitutes. 

6. Must be clean and pure. 

7. Will carry infection. 

8. Quality must be controlled. 

9. Main sources outside city. 
10. Private interests may sell 

without special authoriza- 
tion. 

Business tends toward mon- 
opoly. 

Does not require power of 
eminent domain. 

Does not do so. 



Water 

1. Municipality uses it. 

2. Universally used by inhab- 

itants. 

3. Constantly used. 

4. Essential to public health. 

5. No substitutes. 

6. Must be clean and pure. 

7. Will carry infection. 

8. Quality must be controlled. 

9. Main sources outside city. 
10. Private interests may sell un- 
der special authorization. 

Business tends toward mon- 
opoly. 

Usually requires power of 
eminent domain. 

Makes peculiar use of public 
streets, necessitating special 
grant. 



11 

12 



13. 



11. 



12. 



13. 



The points that are generally sustained by the courts for the 
municipal ownership of any business are, first, business tends toward 
monopoly; second, public nature and purpose of the business, and, 
third, public welfare. In the above parallel these three points seem 
to be as well covered in the case of milk as of water, the main differ- 
ence between the two being that water is cheaper than milk and the 
fact that we are more accustomed to think of water in connection with 
municipal ownership than milk. This is partly because the import- 
ance of milk as a carrier of disease and the necessity for the public 
supervision of its wholesomeness and quality has only been appre- 
ciated during the past decade. 

In the case of Sun Printing & Pub. Asso. vs. New York 8 App. 
Div. 230, 238, 40 N.Y. Supp. 607, 611, affirmed in 152 N.Y. 257, 
37 L.R.A. 788, 46 N.E. 499, the Court employed the following lan- 
guage: "The true test is that which requires that the work shall be 
essentially public and for the general good of all the inhabitants of 
the city. It must not be undertaken merely for gain or for private 
objects. Gain or loss may incidentally follow, but the purpose must 
be primarily to satisfy the need or contribute to the convenience of 
the people of the city at large. Within that sphere of action, novelty 
should impose no veto. Should some inventive genius bye and bye 

51 



create a system for supplying us with pure air, will the representa- 
tives of the people be powerless to utilize it in the great cities of the 
state, however extreme the want and dangerous the delay? Will it 
then be said that pure air is not so important as pure water and clear 
light? We apprehend not." 

In Pond on the Control of Public Utilities, p. 28, it is said: 
"The courts are of the opinion that it is not only within the power 
of the cities, but that it is their duty, to keep themselves free to accept 
for their own use and to provide for their inhabitants new inven- 
tions and superior agencies as they arise, and that cities are not to 
be restricted to the providing for the strict necessities of their citi- 
zens, but that they may also minister to their comfort and pleasure." 

Dillon in his work on Municipal Corporations, 2089 says, "The 
term 'public utility' might, in an extended sense, include the laying 
out, arranging and regulating streets and highways, wharves, parks, 
etc., (in State vs. Barnes 22 Okla. 191) but, in the more restricted 
sense in which it is generally used, its meaning is limited to those 
enterprises which have for their end, the sale of commodities and 
the rendition of service, which to some extent are for private ad- 
vantage or convenience of individual inhabitants. 

On page 2100, he says, "But a complete definition of a 'city 
purpose' is not possible in view of the immense variety of objects 
which have been found to be necessary to the health and welfare of 
modern municipalities. (Sun Pub. Assoc, vs. N. Y. C. 152 N. Y. 257. 
See New York City, Matter of, 99 N. Y. 569.) Each case must de- 
pend largely upon its own facts, and the meaning of these words 
must be evolved as successive cases arise by a process of exclusion 
and inclusion in judicial construction." (People vs. Kelly, 76 N. Y. 
475.) 

On page 2102, he says, "But a dividing line between what is a 
municipal purpose and what is not, is in many cases shadowy and 
uncertain, great weight should be given by the courts to the legis- 
lative determination, and its action should not be annulled unless 
the purpose appears clearly to be one not authorized. (People vs. 
Kelly, 76 N. Y. 475, 489.) While city purposes will usually find 
their development within the municipal limits, such purposes are 
not necessarily limited to a work or expenditure within the city." 

Another Case Sustaining Public Ownership — Ice. 

In Holton vs. Camilla 134 Ga. 560, the Court holds that, "The 
operation of an ice plant by the municipal authorities of the city of 
Camilla, in connection with the electric light and waterworks plant, 
for the purpose of furnishing ice to the inhabitants of the city, is 
not in violation of the Constitution of this state, or otherwise illegal." 
The answer of the defendant, which was introduced in evidence and 
considered upon the trial, states that, "In the hot climate in which 
the city of Camilla is situated ice is necessary for the comfort, 
health and convenience of its inhabitants. If this is true, why should 

52 



not the city be permitted to furnish ice to its inhabitants? And if 
the furnishing of ice to its inhabitants is conducive generally to their 
health, comfort and convenience, it is certainly being furnished for a 
municipal or public purpose. It is a well-known fact that one of the 
main uses to which ice is put is the cooling of water for drinking 
purposes; and when it is used for this purpse, if impure, it is as apt 
to be deleterious to the consumer as any other impure water. Why 
then in the exercise of its police power, may not a city guard against 
impurities in the ice as well as the water used by its inhabitants?" 

Cases Held Not to Warrant Public Ownership. 
Coal and Wood as Fuel 

Opinion of Judges, 15 L. R. A. 809, "The purchase by the city 
or town of coal and wood as fuel, and the resale thereof to its in- 
habitants, is not a public service which can be authorized by the 
Legislature. We are not aware of any necessity why cities and towns 
should undertake this form of business, any more than many others 
which have always been conducted by private enterprise; and we 
are not called upon to consider what extraordinary powers the Com- 
monwealth may exercise, in extraordinary exigencies, for the safety 
of the state or the welfare of the inhabitants." 

Re Municipal Fuel Plants 60 L. R. A., 592, the Court holds, 
"Municipalities have authority to provide fuel for paupers; but 
they cannot be given power by the legislature to buy and sell fuel 
in competition with private enterprise, although it is scare and high 
in price and the cost to consumers may be thereby reduced, unless 
there is such a scarcity as to create a general and wide-spread dis- 
tress in the community, which cannot be met by private enterprise. 
We are not called upon to consider whether the legislature would 
deem it advisable, if it has the power, to authorize cities and towns 
to build storehouses in which to keep large quantities of fuel in an- 
ticipation of a possible famine. In regard to the fourth of the pos- 
sible consequences, — a condition in which the supply of fuel would 
be so small, and the difficulty of obtaining so great, that persons de- 
siring to purchase it would be unable to supply themselves through 
private enterprise, — it is conceivable that agencies of government 
might be able to obtain fuel when citizens generally could not. Under 
such circumstances we are of opinion that the government might con- 
stitute itself an agent for the relief of the community, and that money 
expended for the purpose would be expended for public use." 

So, in Baker vs. Grand Rapids, 142 Mich. 687, 106 N. W. 208, 
it was held that, "The use of a fund by a municipal corporation for 
the purpose of buying and selling coal in the time of scarcity of fuel 
was not a public use, and was therefore unauthorized." 

On the other hand, in Jones against the city of Portland 245 
U. S. 217, it is held that a law of Maine authorizing any city or 
town to establish and maintain a permanent wood, coal and fuel 
yard for the purpose of selling wood, coal and fuel to its inhabi- 
tants at cost does not take the property of tax payers for private 

S3 



uses in violation of the fourteenth amendment, especially where the 
highest court of the state has declared such purpose to be a public 
one. 

The legislature of Louisiana, on the 8th of March, 1869, passed 
an act granting to a corporation, created by it, the exclusive right, 
for twenty-five years to have and maintain slaughter-houses, landings 
for cattle, and yards for inclosing cattle intended for sale or slaugh- 
ter within certain parishes including the city of New Orleans and a 
population between two and three hundred thousand people and 
prohibiting all other persons from building, keeping, or having 
slaughter-houses, landings for cattle, and yards for cattle intended 
for sale or slaughter, within those limits. It was held that this grant 
of exclusive right or privilege guarded by proper limitation of the 
prices to be charged and imposing the duty of providing ample con- 
veniences with permission to all owners of stock to land and of all 
butchers to slaughter at those places, was a police regulation for 
the health and comfort of the people within the power of the State 
legislatures. Slaughter House cases 16 Wallace 36. 

Second Parallel 

Milk Coal or Wood for Fuel 

1. Municipality uses it for hos- 1. Municipality uses it (incon- 

pitals, etc. siderable unless for gas 

2. Universally used by inhabi- and electricity). 

tants. 2. Less than milk. 

3. Constantly used. 3. Less than milk. 

4. Essential to public health. 4. At times. 

5. No substitutes. 5. Yes, natural gas. 

6. Must be clean and pure. 6. No. 

7. Will carry infection. 7. No. 

8. Quality must be controlled. 8. No. 

9. Main sources outside city. 9. Main sources outside city. 

10. Private interests sell. 10. Private interests sell. 

11. Business tends towards mon- 11. No, although monopoly was 

opoly. chief reason for the Maine 

U. S. Sup. Ct. decision. 

It is easily seen from the above parallel that coal and wood as 
fuel lack several of the requisites for municipal control which both 
milk and water possess, i.e., "essential to public health," "quality must 
be controlled" and "business tends toward monopoly," so that even 
if the Courts have held against coal and wood for public control, it 
only tends to support the doctrine that each case must depend largely 
on its own facts. 

Assuming then, that the milk industry conforms to so many 
essential requirements for municipal ownership as announced by 
American legal decisions, we believe there is a good case on the law 

54 



of the matter, conferring the power on New York City to own the 
industry, especially if it is supported by legislative enactment. 

We come now to the various ways in which municipal owner- 
ship and control may manifest itself. 
PLAN 1 

(a) Municipal ownership of city delivery equipment, pasteur- 
izing plants and milk markets. 

(b) Private ownership of production sources. 
PLAN 2 

(a) Municipal ownership of city delivery equipment, pasteur- 
izing plants and milk markets. 

(b) Gradual organization and control of enough of production 
to dominate the rest. 

PLAN 3 

(a) Granting monopoly privilege to a private milk company 
already organized and equipped to give city service. 

(b) Regulating enough of production by law and through 
police power to assure supply. 

The first plan above outlined has been often suggested. It 
would enable many efficiencies to be inaugurated, first, in the city 
delivery of milk such as carrying capacity loads on the milk de- 
livery wagons or zoning the city; second, by the proper organization 
and placement of pasteurizing plants whereby overhead charges 
could be saved by operating properly located plants to their capacity, 
and third, by bringing unity of policy into the city milk market situa- 
tion. For instance, the infant feeding station idea could be extended 
by opening these stations all over the city so that whosoever desired, 
whether they had children in the family or not, could go to the sta- 
tions for milk and thus save to themselves the extra cost of wagon 
delivery. Of course, there might be some sanitary objections to this 
process, requiring the regulation of both the manner of handling the 
milk in the stations and in the hands of the purchasing consumer. 
The practical carrying out of this idea, however, would make con- 
siderable difference in the price to the consumers who would pur- 
chase it in this way. The main reason that the stations are not fur- 
ther extended today, is because of the desire of the Board of Health 
not to interfere with private business enterprise. 

Another way that the extension of milk stations would reduce 
the price to the consumer, would be in saving of bottles which can 
there be brought under almost perfect control. One has only to look 
in ash cans, vacant fields and apartment house cellars to understand 
the appalling losses in milk bottles now borne by the public. This 
plan, however, would leave the control of production in the same 
hands as it is today. The producers could strike at the prices paid 
by the city just as well as at those paid by the milk dealer and there 
would be no assurance of a continuous supply of milk. On the other 
hand, by leaving the market control entirely in the hands of the city, 
the prices could be made so attractive to the milk producer, that pro- 

55 



duction would be stimulated and consequently successful production 
strikes less likely. 

The second plan provides for the same type of municipal own- 
ership in the city and also for the gradual extension of control over 
enough of production to insure the city a minimum supply of milk 
no matter what the organizations of dairymen on the outside might 
do. In theory, it might be conceived that the city should attempt to 
produce milk by owning the land and the cows for the purpose. On 
the theory that such ownership was for a city purpose, the law would 
probably sustain such action. There are cities in Europe today 
where the cows and production are publicly owned. But, such a 
course here would, while presenting the field for a very pretty 
theoretical experiment in efficient production, cost more money and 
require more organizing ability than New York City probably pos- 
sesses. On the other hand, by adopting the idea of the regulating 
commission such as was discussed in our last chapter, enough of 
production might be dominated in this way to assure the City of its 
proper milk supply. 

The third plan contemplates the idea of allowing the tendency 
of monopoly among the milk dealers in the city, to have full play 
by permitting the consolidation of companies for the purpose of 
securing the monopoly privilege of supplying the city with milk. 
This plan would have no advantages over the present situation in 
protecting the city against production strikes unless the idea of the 
regulating commission was also adopted to assure the continuous 
production and supply of milk to the city. 

The main attempt that has been made in this study has been to 
set out the problem as it has appeared to the writer after considerable 
study and thought, with the idea that some suggestion might be con- 
tributed to those who will finally have the burden of solving the milk 
problem. The writer himself is committed to the theory of natural 
co-operation and private control of the industry and believes thor- 
oughly that with proper leadership and encouragement from the 
New York public, the milk industry can be made one of the most 
interesting, useful and efficient of American industrial enterprises. 

The function of government is not business and those engaged 
in public life will do better in adhering to their proper functions. 
Politics is never efficient and politics would certainly enter the milk 
business under general public control. Since both production and 
distribution are distinct functions of the milk industry, each depen- 
dent for industrial health on the other with the consumer entitled to 
efficiency from both, the first great requisite is the co-operation of 
producer, distributor and consumer. On this will depend the big* 
ness and the health of the industry. Upon this bigness and health 
will depend the profits to those engaged in the industry and the 
wholesomeness of the product received by the consumer. The real 
interest of the producer is not production alone, but a healthy milk 
industry throughout. The real interest of the distributor is not dis- 

56 



tribution alone, but a healthy industry throughout. The consumer's 
position is not to support one side or the other, but to insist upon 
the co-operation of both these interests to the end that the public 
may be better and constantly served with a healthful milk supply. 
If this is done hearty support should be accorded both producers and 
dealers alike. 



57 



VITA 

The author was born in Zanesville, Ohio, in 1875. He holds the 
degree of A.B. and A.M. from Marietta College and L.L.B. from 
the Ohio State University. He practised law in Zanesville, Ohio, 
served two terms as probate and juvenile judge of Muskingum 
County, Ohio, and was United States Commissioner in the Southern 
district of Ohio. He studied in the Political Science Department of 
Columbia University under Professors Beard, Goodnow, Giddings, 
Seager and Smith. He was later connected with the New York 
Bureau of Municipal Research where he was assigned to special milk 
investigations in the city and state. For a number of years he was 
Secretary and Director of the New York milk business which furn- 
ished the city infant feeding stations with milk and is now Assistant 
Secretary of the Metropolitan Trust Company of New York. He 
has been an occasional contributor to the Educational Review, 
Scribner's and the New York Times Magazine. 



JAMES F. NEWCOMB & COMPANY, INC. 

UNION PRINTERS 

441 PEARL STREET, N. Y. 



58 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



000 896 067 7 * 



